Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CROMARTY PETROLEUM ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Secondary Schools (Reorganisation)

Mr. McNamara: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to issue the consultative document on the reorganisation of secondary schools in Northern Ireland.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): It is hoped to publish the consultative document before the end of this month. The document is concerned with suggestions for the elimination of 11-plus selection procedure for admission to grammar schools and the reorganisation of secondary education on non-selective lines. It will include the feasibility study carried out by the Senior Chief Inspector of the Northern Ireland Department of Education. The section of this study dealing with individual schools is illustrative of the application of the principles proposed for discussion and has not been agreed to by area education and library boards. Sections will also be included dealing with possible accompanying changes in the legislative, financial and administrative arrangements.

Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that I welcome that reply? Will he tell the House what period will be

available for consultation on these important matters? Can he confirm that no additional financial burden will be placed on voluntary schools as a result?

Mr. Moyle: There will be no additional financial burden placed on voluntary schools if that is what they wish. I hope that there will be a vigorous public debate in Northern Ireland on the matter. I do not want to restrict it, but I hope to make progress. Shall we say six months, and then see how it goes?

Mr. Powell: In view of the importance of the subject and its special application to the circumstances of Northern Ireland, would not any legislative proceedings be appropriately by Bill and not by Order?

Mr. Moyle: I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. The question of legislation will not arise for about 18 months.

Mr. McCusker: Irrespective of that reply, will the Minister assure us that he will not change the system simply for the sake of change but will first satisfy himself that he is replacing it with something better?

Mr. Moyle: I can give that assurance.

Provisional Sinn Fein

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the discussions held by his Department with the Provisional Sinn Fein.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): As I said in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 13th April, my officials will talk with any lawful organisation in Northern Ireland, although no negotiations have taken place or will take place. I am not prepared to give details of meetings with individual organisations.

Mr. Gow: Is the Secretary of State aware that the continued discussions between his Department and the political spokesmen of the IRA are profoundly damaging and dangerous to the cause which he shares with hon. Members on this side of the House—namely, the rule of law and the restoration of peace in Northern Ireland? Does he accept that the policy that he is following of discussion with Sinn Fein is very damaging


indeed to the morale of the security forces in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Rees: I do not agree at all with the hon. Gentleman's latter point. The whole feeling of republicanism that exists in Northern Ireland marks it out as different. I thought I was right 18 months ago to take advantage of the opportunity of trying to break the log jam that had built up over the previous seven years. I would have been wrong not to attempt something then. If that is again necessary in the future, I shall do it.

Mr. Neave: What was the last occasion on which these talks took place? Is the Secretary of State aware that the talks are very unpopular in Dublin? Is it not clear that members of Provisional Sinn Fein are the spokesmen for an illegal organisation? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree with those in Northern Ireland who say that talks with men whose only voice is a Thompson sub-machine gun or an Armelite rifle are entirely futile?

Mr. Rees: My officials do not meet with people like that. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is logical, but it shows no understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland or of the large number of people with republican leanings. The matter cannot be left alone. If the question arises, we shall do the same again. I am not prepared to give the dates when the talks last took place. I insist that if it is necessary it will happen again.

Community Relations

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what indications there are of sections of the Protestant and Catholic communities in Northern Ireland coming together in the interests of peace; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Nigel Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any statement to make about the resumption of talks between party leaders in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: It would not be right for me to comment on the various exchanges taking place among the political parties in Northern Ireland, still

less for me to seek to interfere. The Government welcome the constructive efforts of those in Northern Ireland who seek an equitable and durable agreement.

Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that we understand the efforts which he has been making to promote peace in Northern Ireland through every possible human contact? Will he further accept that, despite the increases this year in sectarian killings, there is a feeling that the two communities are reaching out towards each other and that those who indulge in sectarianism are increasingly being isolated? Does he agree that that is a reasonable assessment of the situation?

Mr. Rees: That is a reasonable assessment. I must not hide from the House my concern about the nature of the violence. Much of it has been straight sectarian in nature. Many people whom I meet tell me of the isolation of the men of violence, but that does not prevent them from engaging in violence. We must remember, however, that there have been false dawns before, and false dawns that suddenly collapse lead to disillusion. Let us take the matter carefully. There is a spirit there. I hope that anything we can do in the House will foster it.

Sir N. Fisher: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the apparent alignment of the official Unionists with the constructive approach by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), as opposed to the totally negative reaction of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), might well lead to the resumption of devolved government in Ulster based on principles supported by all parties in the House?

Mr. Rees: It certainly might do that, but the operative word is "might". Praise from me for any individual politician is not very productive, and even doing the opposite of praising, however much I might like to do that, might also prove to be unproductive. That is why at the moment I say very little about what is going on in Northern Ireland in this respect.

Mr. Corbett: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the work and efforts of the trade union movement in Northern Ireland to encourage and enable the two communities to work sensibly together


in the sphere of the trade unions? Are not the trade unions doing work which others in the political sphere would do well to emulate?

Mr. Rees: Yes, I think that is right. I met the trade unions only this week. This is no new attempt on the part of trade unions. Northern Ireland Ministers in previous Governments praised the trade unions in Northern Ireland, and all I can do is to add to that.
The basic problem is that, although on the political and industrial levels many people are reasonable, there is beneath a basic gut feeling on both sides. Only the slow work of political life by those who are not involved in violence, and by the trade unions, will eventually lead to removing or isolating gut reactions which are a legacy of history.

Mr. Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever has been the case in the past, the background to the present violence is not the absence of co-operation or the presence of hostility between adherents of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism but the activities of small numbers of people who are irreconcilably opposed to any acceptable form of government in the Republic or in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Rees: I do not disagree at all with the right hon. Gentleman's last comment. Things have changed in the past seven years. I am not so sure about the other aspects of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Although the vast majority of the people are firmly against violence, what concerns me is the tacit acceptance of violence in some areas, particularly in the urban areas. How to overcome this is an extremely difficult question. On the main point, however, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Watkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ending of detention was a material factor in improving relationships between the two communities, and that the primacy which he attaches to the rule of law could lead to an improvement of the situation in Northern Ireland? Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on an article in The Times this morning about increasing the liaison between the Army and the police to bring criminals before the courts?

Mr. Rees: I hope tomorrow to say something about the article in the newspaper, following up what I said a fortnight ago. I regard that as the right direction to take. In the past seven years the Army has taken the lead in security in Northern Ireland. I want to see that arrangement gradually—no more than that—reversed. That is the right way to go. The ending of detention was right and important. What concerns me in Northern Ireland is the existence of a small number of people on either side who organise the violence but do not go out on the street and pull the trigger. Those are the ones we want to get at. To get at them we need evidence. That is the long-term view. In the short-term, however, when I see the results of the activities of those organisers I wish that we could get at them much more quickly.

Mr. Loyden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that more positive steps could be taken to involve the trade union movement in Northern Ireland? What steps is he prepared to take to bring together the British TUC and the Irish TUC on this question?

Mr. Rees: I have already agreed that the work that is being done by the trade unions is first-rate, but I would not attempt to instruct the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and its Northern Ireland Committee and tell them what to do. The links between the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and the South in Dublin and the TUC in London are very good. Mr. Jack Jones was in Ireland last week speaking at the annual conference of the Transport and General Workers' Union. What he said there could not be bettered. That shows that the valued support that the Government and the country get from the British trade union movement on the Irish question is first-rate.

Land Drainage

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will cause to be drawn up a scheme for Northern Ireland indicating the size and location of areas reclaimable or improvable by land drainage and the phases in which, and the assumptions upon which, the corresponding works are expected to be executed.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: No, Sir. Since 1947 the Northern Ireland Department of


Agriculture has been carrying out a Province-wide programme of river drainage, which is now about three-quarters complete. The initiative in field drainage rests with the farmers and other landowners.

Mr. Powell: Notwithstanding that record, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be valuable, particularly for the purposes of securing more public interest and understanding, if a long-term view were presented of the potentialities and the methods of agricultural land drainage in the Province as a whole?

Mr. Rees: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a presentational case should be made to explain what is to be done and to show the community what needs to be done. I shall certainly consider that suggestion. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could have a word with me about it or with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who is responsible. There is a great deal of leeway to make up. Much of what has happened in Northern Ireland is linked with names. On this side of the water, land drainage was started by Sir Robert Peel in the early 1840s. That did not happen in Northern Ireland, which is curious in view of Sir Robert Peel's involvement with Northern Ireland. Temporary and long-term measures need to be taken. If the right hon. Gentleman will have a word with us about any particular issue he has in mind, at the top end of the Laggan Valley or in the upper reaches of the Bann, we shall do what we can. I must stick to the plan that is being followed.

Mr. Farr: In considering these plans, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that EEC money is available for these schemes? Will he make sure that an application is made to the EEC for consideration?

Mr. Rees: If any money is available, I am after it.

Ceasefire

Mr. Wm. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Provisional IRA has announced the end of the ceasefire; how many persons are known to have been killed by the Provisional IRA during the period of the

ceasefire; and how many during the 18 months previous to its announcement.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have not heard of any announcement by the Provisional IRA purporting to end the ceasefire which it announced unilaterally on 10th February 1975. Since that date it has admitted responsibility for 23 deaths in Northern Ireland. Comparable figures are not available for the earlier period. The exact number it has killed must be a matter for speculation, but it is certainly more than the admitted figure.

Mr. Ross: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when the ceasefire was announced he said that he would require a sustained and genuine cessation of violence before he would release all the detainees? In view of the level of violence since then, does he think that that criterion was met?

Mr. Rees: Certainly the criterion was not met in the context of the ceasefire, but my decision to end detention was not taken eventually in the context of the ceasefire, because it did not materialise with the Provisional IRA. I have been looking carefully at the figures and I find that in 1972, when internment was introduced, violence escalated to the nth degree. That is not to say that I did not realise that with the ending of detention we might be in a difficult position. There is no doubt in my mind that the ending of detention was the right way forward in the circumstances of the time. I can only say again that one must look at the figures. Detention did not end the violence. It stimulated it.

Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the practice of describing the victims of brutality as either Catholic or Protestant is deplorable? Would it not be more helpful if they were described as Christians, as apparently they are all members of one religious organisation?

Mr. Rees: When I see what is done, and whatever is the label that is given, I find the latter description more than I can bear. The Chief Constable, as he has every right to do, has decided that the nomenclature of victims, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, should be ended. What he would understand, and what he does understand, is that in many parts of Belfast, or in Northern Ireland


as a whole, everyone knows the nomenclature whether or not one says it. However, I accept his advice. I believe that it is a sensible thing to try because it may offer some help. Knowing so many people on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland, my opinion is that to give religious descriptions to them, whatever may be their origins, belies the views of those who carry out the murdering and killing in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Neave: As more than 150 people have been killed this year, is it not thoroughly nebulous and misleading for the right hon. Gentleman to talk about a Provisional IRA ceasefire being in existence? There is no such thing as a ceasefire.

Mr. Rees: If I had said that, I should have been extremely foolish. If anyone believed I said that, he would be wrong.

Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that many of us on the Labour Benches at least are not happy about the sectarian nature of those who want to list the melancholy parade of killings from one side to the other? Many of us think that killings occur on both sides, and we are condemnatory of them. To list them purely on one side is most unhelpful. Those who do that should make better efforts to try to bring the two sides together.

Mr. Rees: As regards the killings and murders and all that goes on in Northern Ireland, and taking the generality of my hon. Friend's question, I think it is right that we should condemn them. But there can be no justification in any sense of the term for what my hon. Friend has described. There was a time when that was done. I believe it is disappearing in Northern Ireland, as it certainly has done in this House. Condemnation, and not even the slightest degree of justification, should be the order of the day.

Fugitives (Apprehension)

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations he has had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland on a scheme to establish the mutual secondment of RUC and Garda officers to assist in the apprehension of fugitives in border areas.

Mr. Moyle: This is in the first place a matter for the Chief Constable and the Chief Commissioner of the Garda.

Mr. Farr: I cannot thank the hon. Gentleman for that Answer, which was negative in the extreme. This is the sort of initiative that the Government should be considering. If attempts were made to establish consultation on these lines, possibly a real impact could be made on cross-border security and co-operation between the security forces. It is not good enough for the Minister to answer in such a negative manner. I ask him to look at the matter again.

Mr. Moyle: I should have no objection in principle to this taking place, provided that it was acceptable to the two police forces and provided that the practical problems could be solved. The operation of the police force on the other side of the border, for example, would be limited to some extent, because the difference in the law between the Republic and Northern Ireland is sufficiently wide to render an easy transfer not a simple matter.

Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that even if he cannot achieve what would be a welcome initiative of this sort, there is much scope for the sort of cooperation that would enable the best use to be made of manpower on the border so that the maximum number of crossing points can be policed? Does he agree that rather than having security forces on both sides of the border, policing, for example, a single crossing point, each force on its own side, it would be desirable if the forces could be deployed through cooperation at a number of different points? In that way a lot could be achieved.

Mr. Moyle: Broadly speaking, that sort of thing is already done. Co-operation between the two forces is growing all the time.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we welcome and have supported what he has said about increased co-operation between the two forces? However, when talking about secondment between forces of two sovereign States, clearly that cannot be done. It could be done between Northern Ireland and the Metropolitan Police, but that is not a parallel.

Mr. Moyle: I note what the hon. Gentleman said. I pointed out that the RUC will make a substantial attempt to achieve the sort of liaison and exchange that we are talking about, but I am sure there are a number of practical problems that will have to be solved before it can be put into practice.

Security

Mr. Townsend: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: As I told the House on 14th June, although some of the violence, like sectarian crime, remains the same, the security situation is constantly changing; for example, there are now fewer street disturbances but more uncoordinated and individual crimes. Recently, terrorists have made a number of attacks which seem designed primarily to destroying places providing employment. The security forces are taking all appropriate measures to bring those responsible to court; so far this year 583 persons have been charged with terrorist crime, including 50 with murder.

Mr. Townsend: Will the right hon. Gentleman now give clear and precise directives to both police and military as to their long-term roles in Northern Ireland? Secondly, what are his plans to improve liaison between police and military, which in several areas is lamentably weak? Is it the plan of the Government to re-equip the RUC with any more armoured personnel carriers?

Mr. Rees: On the hon. Gentleman's last question, in certain places this is necessary and is being done. I think that "long-term directives" are the words that have been used. The long-term policy has been reassessed, and I have now received the report of the ministerial committee, of which I happen to be Chairman, which has been considering the long-term future. That must be flexible. In 1969 no one would have believed the extent of the violence that would be experienced some years later. I propose to say something tomorrow about liaison between the police force and the Army, but if the hon. Gentleman has any evidence of points at where it is weak at the moment, and if he will give me chapter and verse, I shall put

the matter to the RUC, the Chief Constable and the General. All I can say is that they have not put it to me this week.

Mr. Dalyell: Can my right hon. Friend give a current assessment of the flow of money and arms from the United States and Canada?

Mr. Rees: Assessments are being made. Most of the money that comes from North America is in the provision of foreign exchange for the purchase of arms in different parts of the world. The rest of the money is raised by bank robberies North and South, and post office robberies. They are the major source of funds. However, the important funds still come, although to a lesser degree, I understand, from North America. The people who provide that money, who believe they are doing good, should see the results of the money that they have provided. They would then realise that they are being fooled when they are asked for the money.

Mr. Craig: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the recent attacks on the homes and lives of prominent business men represent a sinister development? Does intelligence indicate whether it is part of an overall plan?

Mr. Rees: I often find—and certainly on advice on these matters—that something happens for a while that has obviously been ordered by somebody, but it does not often carry on for a long period. It seems to wax and wane over a period of weeks. Those who provided a list of 250 business men in Northern Ireland, with their home addresses, were providing a death list. I understand that those concerned have apologised. If I were in the families of those who have been attacked, apologies would not be enough.

Mr. Fernyhough: My right hon. Friend said that some of the money for these purposes came from raids on post offices and factories. Will he give an idea of the total number of banks and post offices within the territory and, secondly, the manpower that would be involved in providing a 24-hour guard upon them?

Mr. Rees: I cannot give my right hon. Friend the numbers without notice. Obviously, if the Army or police were to


be involved in guarding buildings on a roster basis, it would take up the services of a large number of people. The situation is difficult in that respect.

Mr. Goodhart: Is the Secretary of State yet able to announce any decision about expanding the number of full-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment?

Mr. Rees: I propose to say something on that topic in tomorrow's debate. Let me simply say that we attach importance to the expansion of the regular element of the UDR.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: What new confidence in the forces of law and order can be given to the terrorised, and particularly the law-abiding of nationalist tradition, when the Secretary of State continues to insist on parleys with the political commissars of the Provos?

Mr. Rees: I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about these matters, but his concern comes from afar.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: From afar?

Mr. Rees: It is not something that looms in Northern Ireland.

Direct Rule

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in what respects he has made the present system of direct rule more positive than that in force in previous periods of direct rule; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: During direct rule, successive Governments have rightly hesitated to take action on non-urgent matters on which a future devolved Government could be expected to make its own decisions. But there has been direct rule for all but five months of the last four years, and I have decided that it would no longer be right to defer decisions in this way.
In recent months the Government have instituted searching reviews on security, economics and social policies in Northern Ireland, the results of which will enable me to decide whether any fresh initiatives should be taken.
I have also been reviewing the machinery of direct rule in regard to such matters as parliamentary procedures and the handling of legislation for Northern

Ireland. I shall have something to say on this in the course of the debate tomorrow.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Secretary of State aware that we eagerly await his contribution to tomorrow's debate? Meanwhile, will he and the Northern Ireland office endeavour to help community groups which are doing such good work in Northern Ireland in bringing people together by providing some kind of interim representation of ordinary people in the Province?

Mr. Rees: I shall do a great deal, through my hon. Friend the Minister of State, to help community groups, but not in any sense of their being representative as if they were elected. It is most important to stick to that view. There is one other factor to be considered. There are community groups and community groups in Northern Ireland, as the people who live there know. My colleagues have to be selective in the attitude that is taken in that respect. I shall tomorrow give my views to the House on aspects of direct rule, but I should not like to give the impression that there is something new and urgent in dealing with this basic problem. I feel that all along there has been too much said in this House in the last five years about solving the Irish question instead of seeking to deal with the immediate situation and to cope with the situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hardy: I welcome the answer given by the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison). Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the pace of his actions must be such that Northern Ireland opinion must not be isolated, because progress will be determined by Northern Ireland opinion and not by any degree of impatience at Westminster?

Mr. Rees: I agree firmly with my hon. Friend. Our aim must be to use the developing mood of the people in Northern Ireland. Indeed, this is what Her Majesty's Government will do.

Mr. Mates: On the general question of future direct rule, many of us broadly agree with the profile taken by the Secretary of State in regard to talks between the parties, but is he aware that much


will depend on his attitude to the outcome of talks? Could he, either tomorrow in the debate or in his replies today, give an assurance to the people who are spending so much time trying to negotiate delicately that he will look favourably on any scheme that is agreed by Ulstermen among themselves?

Mr. Rees: Of course, I shall look favourably on any agreement that may come forward between the two major groups in Northern Ireland, and I shall say something about that aspect of the matter tomorrow. Any agreement that is reached will depend on the supposition that people are prepared to work together. The details must be examined searchingly, but I hope that the basic factors of agreement will be successful.

Police (Armament and Equipment Supplies)

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what items of police armament and equipment requisitions are outstanding; and when it is expected that these will be fulfilled.

Mr. Moyle: In the first place this is a matter for the Chief Constable and the police authority. A considerable amount of equipment is ordered each year for the RUC, and it would be impracticable to list all the items that are currently being dealt with as part of the continuing programme. If there is a particular case the hon. Member has in mind, I shall be glad to have inquiries made.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Minister encourage the newly-constituted Police Authority to make speedily available the very best and most up-to-date equipment that may be requested by the RUC to enable it to cope with the speedily changing tactics of the terrorist organisations?

Mr. Moyle: Yes, I shall.

Mr. Dalyell: Have any appreciable quantities of arms fallen into unauthorised hands?

Mr. Moyle: There has been little traffic in that respect.

Mr. McCusker: I accept that the responsibility is that of the Chief Constable, but will the Minister satisfy himself that the equipment used by the

special patrol group in South Armagh is adequate?

Mr. Moyle: I have met members of the special patrol groups in South Armagh—it was a slightly unorthodox visit, and I do not intend to repeat it too often—and heard complaints about weapons. All the points they made are being processed through the machinery.

Car Hijackings (Compensation)

Mr. Dunlop: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the criterion for compensation for a hijacked car used as a car bomb.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): Compensation in respect of a hijacked car used as a car bomb may be claimed under the Criminal Injuries to Property (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971. The criteria governing the payment of compensation in such a case are the same as for any other criminal damage.
The main criteria are that the aggregate amount of damage must exceed £20 and that the damage sustained must have been caused by members of an unlawful association or in a riotous situation.

Mr. Dunlop: Is the Minister aware that one of my constituents whose car was used for a car bomb in Portadown three years ago, as a result of which the offenders were given sentences of imprisonment of eight years, has not yet been recompensed for the loss of his vehicle? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Criminal Injuries Board will speed up the payment of compensation?

Mr. Concannon: I shall examine that matter. If the hon. Gentleman examines this subject, he will find that any lack of speed in paying out compensation is often not a matter for my Department but lies elsewhere.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: How does the Minister discover whether an organisation is lawful or unlawful in deciding whether to pay compensation when, by definition, the identity of those concerned is not known?

Mr. Concannon: The Chief Constable has to issue a certificate in this respect.

Fair Employment Agency

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he proposes to announce the names of the remaining members of the Fair Employment Agency.

Mr. Moyle: Shortly after the current consultations are completed.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Does the Minister understand that he will not be denied plenty of time for consultation in regard to these important appointments, because this group of persons has important work to do? Does he not regard it as marginally encouraging that there were those in this House who previously bitterly opposed the fair employment legislation but who on Third Reading decided not to oppose it, undoubtedly because they realised that their bigoted approach was not readily supported?

Mr. Moyle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We look forward to a successful period of work for the Fair Employment Agency supported by all sections of the Northern Irish community. I take the point about careful consultations in regard to agency membership before the names are announced. I am sure that we shall get some good people to serve on it.

Mr. McCusker: Taking account of the principle of the Bill, will the Minister of State ensure that there is equality of opportunity for everyone who seeks to serve on this body?

Mr. Moyle: We have done our best to ensure that.

Mr. Powell: Does the Minister agree that, while my hon. Friends and I maintain our objections to this attempt to deal with these problems by legislation, nevertheless we co-operated to a considerable degree and successfully improved the legislation? That is something which can hardly be said about the official Opposition.

Mr. Moyle: As I have already said, the right hon. Gentleman is carrying on an argument with the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), and I have no intention of acting as umpire. I am grateful for the good offices of

the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues and the co-operation which they gave eventually.

Handicapped Persons (Holidays)

Mr. Bradford: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide a holiday centre for physically handicapped people who require medical supervision presently unavailable in existing welfare holiday schemes.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): Health and social services boards may arrange holidays or short-stay accommodation for physically handicapped people in a variety of residential settings or in hospital, according to the needs of the person concerned and his family.

Mr. Bradford: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that medical supervision of a specialised kind is not available at many of these centres? Will he also accept that the area boards in Northern Ireland are enthusiastic about such a scheme which would involve medical supervision? Does he appreciate that as £1·5 million has been made available to some community associations, some of which operate in a very doubtful rôle in Northern Ireland, money cannot be the excuse for cutting off this worthy cause from the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Dunn: The existing arrangements meet the majority of the needs. I appreciate the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman, but he must be aware that consultations are taking place about the extension of services to the handicapped. It would be very expensive to provide the special medical care that the hon. Gentleman requires throughout all the centres, and I hope that he appreciates this fact. I am aware of one particular case in which he has shown great interest. Therefore, it is right that I should inform him that the allocation of accommodation has been made to that particular patient.

Sir David Renton: In giving further thought to this matter, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the needs of the mentally handicapped as well as the needs of the physically handicapped?

Mr. Dunn: Yes, Sir.

Injury and Damage (Compensation)

Mr. Weetch: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much has been paid in compensation for injury and damage to property since 1968 to date; and how much is outstanding.

Mr. Concannon: The amount paid under the Criminal Injuries Acts (Northern Ireland) 1956–71 in respect of damage to property since current records were started in 1969 to 31st May 1976 is £154,006,028. The estimated value of claims outstanding is currently under review, and I shall write to my hon. Friend when the figures are available.

Mr. Weetch: These are very substantial amounts of money. Can my hon. Friend tell me who was responsible for paying these sums of money before the present arrangements were made? Can he also say under which existing legislation these amounts are paid at present?

Mr. Concannon: Prior to this matter becoming the responsibility of the United Kingdom taxpayer, there were two different arrangements. In 1957 the responsibility lay with the ratepayers of the council areas in Northern Ireland. Latterly, when it became expensive it was done on a fifty-fifty basis between them and Stormont. Since 1971, of course, it has been the responsibility of the United Kingdom taxpayer. All this legislation was passed in the old Stormont.

Bread

Mr. Watkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether lie has received the report of the inquiry into the Northern Ireland bread industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Moyle: The working party on bread costs and prices in Northern Ireland has made recommendations for improving the financial viability of the baking industry and for bringing the price of bread in the Province more closely into line with prices charged over most of the United Kingdom. Copies of the report by the consultant to the working party, Professor Gibson, have been placed in the Library.
In order to give the industry time to implement these recommendations, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has

agreed to extend, for a strictly limited period, the special relaxation of the Price Code which applies to bakeries in Northern Ireland. I shall be maintaining close contact with the industry with a view to encouraging early progress toward rationalisation.

Mr. Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that bread is so much higher in price in Northern Ireland is extremely disturbing? Would he agree that the dispensation given by his right hon. Friend will not encourage the industry to modernise itself to the advantage of citizens in the Province?

Mr. Moyle: The price of bread in Northern Ireland is high, and it is our intention to bring it into line with the price in the rest of the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend is anxious to help to ensure that no redundancies are created in a period of high unemployment, but the danger is that the industry might sit back and not take advantage of the period it has been allowed for reorganisation. I shall be very vigilant to ensure that the industry modernises in the course of the next few months. I see no prospects of the penny being extended beyond the end of this year.

TUC AND CBI

Mr. Lawson: asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet the TUC and CBI.

Mr. Gow: asked the Prime Minister when he next intends to meet the TUC.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister when he next plans to meet the General Council of the TUC.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I refer the hon. Members and my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 27th May.

Mr. Lawson: When the Prime Minister meets the TUC and the CBI will he give an assurance that the massive public expenditure cuts for next year which are now well advanced in their preparation will be announced and debated before the House rises for the Summer Recess? And will he this time answer the question I have put instead of, as last Tuesday,


answering a totally different question which he seemed to get from some scrap of paper?

The Prime Minister: I answered the Question the hon. Gentleman has put today last Tuesday.

Mr. Skinner: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would tell me and the TUC which element of the investment relief monitoring device which was announced yesterday will be used in cases where firms apply to put up their prices and at the same time employ non-union labour. How will he explain to the TUC General Council why these cheapskate firms can put up their prices and retain non-union labour while at the same time cuts of £1,000 million or more in public expenditure will mean that trade union labour finishes up in the dole queue?

The Prime Minister: It has always been my view that those employed, whether in private industry or in public service, should belong to a trade union. They escape their obligations if they do not join.
This is a consultative document which is being published, and the TUC—or any other organisation—may make representations about it. In my view, however, it would not be particularly useful at this stage in the investment cycle to pursue this point. I hope that everyone in industry will join the appropriate trade union.

Mr. Gow: Has the Prime Minister read the document "Social Contract 1976–77" in which the TUC states that it is opposed vigorously to any further cuts in public expenditure? Despite the misuse of the word "further", will the Prime Minister confirm that he will make whatever cuts in public expenditure he and the Government believe are justified, whatever the views of the TUC?

The Prime Minister: There is a certain Pavlovian attitude among Conservative Members on this matter. This public expenditure matter is one of a whole series of factors in the Government's economic policies, some of which are being carried forward with great success and others without success. We shall try to get a combination of all factors in appropriate proportions in due time.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 1st July 1976.

The Prime Minister: I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet this morning, and I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen this evening. Apart from my duties in this House and some meetings with hon. Members, I shall also attend a reception being held in honour of the retiring Staff Side Secretary of the National Whitley Council.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is a pity that he did not find time to attend some event celebrating Free Enterprise Day? Is the fact that in his 12 weeks as Prime Minister the pound is down 9 cents the factor that makes him write in the latest White Paper published yesterday that it is
"no good paying ourselves in confetti"?

The Prime Minister: If it is Free Enterprise Day, I think that free enterprise had better do a little more advertising, because, I regret to say, I was not aware of it. As for the strength of sterling, I draw attention to what was said in the Bundestag yesterday:
The encouraging progress in Britain on the way to a new social consensus between Government, trade unions and employers, which was noted with applause in Puerto Rico, justifies the signs of increased confidence in the British Pound".
What a pity that has to come from the German Chancellor and not from the Opposition.

Mr. David Steel: When the Prime Minister finds himself with a spare 10 minutes in a busy day, will he take the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection by the arm and go outside to buy an ice cream cone or a soft drink? They will both then see what visitors to this country and local residents are having to pay for these products in the heat wave.

The Prime Minister: I have not pursued my inquiries that far, but if the hon. Member would like to help me, I will go with him to do so.

Mr. Fernyhough: Since this is not only Free Enterprise Day but, we understand,


Free Enterprise Week, will my right hon. Friend have published in Hansard the number of applications received by the various Government Departments this week for aid so that we may see just how free that enterprise is?

The Prime Minister: I think that would be a work of supererogation. But I believe that there is a clear case for private enterprise standing on its own feet and making an adequate profit. It is important, however, for the Opposition to remember that a great deal of so-called free enterprise is coming to the State for continuing aid because of the impossibility of sustaining itself or, because of the size of its enterprise, of raising sufficient capital in other directions.

Mrs. Thatcher: As the Prime Minister will presumably have seen the Secretary of State for Industry this morning and as that right hon. Gentleman has agreed that nationalisation of shipbuilding will involve some closure of shipyards and some redundancies, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the agreement reached between the Government and the Scottish and Welsh Nationalists on Tuesday night involved any change in the distribution of jobs or redundancies between shipyards?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is a little out of date. I went to Largs in Scotland the week before Whit-sun when I was invited to address the annual conference of the Boilermakers Society. It represents a very important element in Scottish shipbuilding. I said there that the shipbuilding industry would need to be contracted. There was therefore no doubt in the mind of any Scottish nationalist or anyone else of what I had said in Scotland or of what the position is.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister has ignored the pith of the question. Did the agreement involve any change in the pattern of redundancies or jobs in shipyards?

The Prime Minister: I cannot answer that question—

Mr. Burden: Open government!

The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to be batted between the Scottish nationalists and the Tory Party's hatred

of them. As far as I know—and I do not have the Conservative Party's briefing this week and am, therefore, at a disadvantage—the only undertaking that was given was that made by my right hon. Friend the Lord President when he wound up the debate. The Scottish nationalists found it convincing, much to the disappointment of the Conservatives, who must learn to bear these things with fortitude.

Mr. Flannery: When my right hon. Friend is extolling free enterprise, will he remind the Conservatives that many, if not the majority, of the difficulties of British industry are due to the lack of investment because Conservative supporters will not invest in their much vaunted British industry, but invest in foreign industry instead? Will he ask them once again to put money into British industry?

The Prime Minister: I hope that as a result of the consultative document on the Price Code published yesterday and the very strict arrangements being made for monitoring prices, but in the light of the concessions which have been made, industries will invest more in order to create new jobs. Overseas investment is a complicated matter. Frequently a continuing investment overseas has to be made in order to maintain plant and machinery from profits which are not remitted to this country. But, having put that point, I do not take the view that there is no unnecessary overseas investment. Companies should review their overseas policies to see whether it is necessary to invest in those activities to maintain their share in overseas markets.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Third Reading of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill has yet to be faced? Is he aware that the Scottish National Party expects the creation of a Scottish division autonomous beneath the Scottish Development Agency as a firm commitment from the Government?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will not expect me to go any further than my right hon. Friend the Lord President. These will be matters for discussion during the remaining stages of the Bill when I am sure that we shall have a series of short, sharp and informative debates, as we had on the Education Bill yesterday.

PRIME MINISTER (TELEVISION INTERVIEW)

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a transcript of his interview on ITN News on 15th June on the state of the nation.

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a transcript of the text of the interview which he gave on "News at Ten" on Independent Television on 15th June.

The Prime Minister: I did so on 16th June.

Mr. Adley: Is the Prime Minister aware that many people will welcome his remarks in that speech about people having to solve or not solve their own problems? Does he not recognise, however, that a pre-requisite of that situation is that workers, savers and entrepreneurs should be able to work within a taxation system that offers them some incentive?

The Prime Minister: I think that the taxation system must offer incentives, but the Conservatives frequently do not give the correct picture of the levels of British taxation by comparison with other countries. A more detailed and careful scrutiny will show that general taxation in this country is not out of line with that in others.

Mr. Corbett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the first priority is to get people to work so that they can pay tax? Will he go out of his way in his current discussions to encourage the investment we need in British manufacturing industry?

The Prime Minister: I hope that at the meeting of the NEDC at which I shall be taking the chair next Wednesday I shall have further discussions with both sides of industry about this matter. Lord Watkinson has already said that the price increases are not sufficient, but he has given general encouragement to his members to make more investment in order to create more jobs.

Mr. Latham: Is the Prime Minister aware that while he replied earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) he did not answer him on the subject of public expenditure? Since

the television broadcast dealt specifically with public expenditure, will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm that massive cuts are being prepared in Whitehall?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave 10 minutes earlier to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson).

Mr. Pavitt: Following what my right hon. Friend said about people solving their own problems, will he refer to the central price review body the question of cutting private expenditure as a possible way of making up the investment gap? Does he recall that last year we spent £22,790 million publicly, but more than three times as much privately? Might it not be possible to solve our problems by cutting expenditure in the private as well as in the public sector?

The Prime Minister: The level of consumption in the private sector has been falling and the standard of life of our people has not been increasing, at any rate in terms of private consumption, though their social wage has been increasing. I do not think that this would be the right moment to cut people's standard of life in terms of private consumption any further.

CABINET DOCUMENTS (DISCLOSURE)

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the disclosure of information in Cabinet papers to the author of the article in the magazine New Society about the child benefit scheme. I apologise for the fact that it will be rather long.
I should first inform the House of the result of the investigation carried out by Sir Douglas Allen and I shall outline the further action that is being taken.
Sir Douglas Allen's inquiry has been very thorough. It has included interviews with Ministers and with all political advisers who had access. All civil servants who had access, including those concerned solely with the custody and handling of the relevant material, have also been interviewed. Sir Douglas Allen has also followed up all the suggestions and leads put to him by those who have been interviewed and most of


those that have appeared in the Press. He also interviewed Mr. Frank Field, the author of the article, who refused to disclose the source of his information.
As I informed the House earlier, there is no doubt about the authenticity of the quotations in the New Society article. The manner of the disclosure is, however, more doubtful. Thus, while some of the quotations are accurate, others contain minor textual errors. The article was also wrong in saying that there was a meeting of the Cabinet on 4th May. Sir Douglas Allen considers that the likely explanation is that the author of the article did not possess a copy of the papers from which he quoted, but that someone who had access to them made extensive and possibly rapid notes from them which were subsequently handed over.
Sir Douglas Allen concentrated his inquiry on those who had access to the Limited Circulation Annex recording the discussion which the Cabinet had on 6th May. This record falls into a category of documents which is given a restricted circulation, and very strict rules exist for their handling. Departments are not permitted to copy them, in whole or in part. They are not to be sent to individuals in a Department but must be read, on a strict "need to know" basis, only in the Private Office concerned.
In the case of this particular Limited Circulation Annex, 34 copies were issued, and it was hoped that by concentrating the investigation on it, the scope of the inquiry could be focused on a relatively few people.
Sir Douglas Allen's inquiry revealed, however, that the strict procedures for handling this document were not fully observed by all Departments. Three Departments copied it and in others the original document was shown to individuals outside the Private Office concerned. This failure to observe the rules regrettably made the task of identifying the sources of the disclosure more difficult by increasing the range of access and thus the number of people involved.
However, no conclusive evidence has been found to show that this failure to observe the proper procedures was in itself responsible for the disclosure.
I have to inform the House that, despite his very thorough inquiries, Sir Douglas Allen has been unable to discover the source of this leak.
The problem of leaks is by no means new and it would be misleading to pretend otherwise. They have taken place for many years. They are part of the enduring relationship between Governments and the Press, in the course of which the interests of the two parties will sometimes be different.
What was disturbing about the disclosure to the author of the New Society article was that it involved the unauthorised passing over of extracts from the papers of the Cabinet itself, which the recipients had formally undertaken not to do. This is an abuse of trust which cannot be in the public interest, and it is in a different order of gravity from some of the stories and allegations which have been made about the disclosure of some relatively innocuous documents.
The House will recall that I invited whoever was responsible to come forward to say so. He or she has not done this, with the result that this leaves a large number of persons under suspicion, including one or two whose names have been published in the Press without supporting evidence. I regret this very much.
The following action is therefore being taken. First, one or two matters came to Sir Douglas Allen's attention which could not be wholly explained. I have therefore decided, after consultation with the Attorney-General, to invite the police to carry out an investigation into these matters and into any other material in Sir Douglas Allen's report which may appear to them to justify further probing. This investigation will be directed towards discovering who was responsible for the disclosure.
I informed the Attorney-General of this decision and he has considered the matter. He now informs me that he has had regard to all the relevant factors, including Mr. Field's voluntary admission, and he authorises me to say that he is informing Mr. Field that he will not be prosecuted in respect of any offence under the Official Secrets Act arising out of this matter. He is giving the same undertaking to those concerned


with the publication of the article in New Society.
Secondly, there is the matter of the procedures for handling Cabinet documents. As an immediate measure, I am issuing fresh directions that the existing rules are to be scrupulously observed. I think, however, that the rules themselves should be examined by a small Committee of Privy Counsellors. I am glad to inform the House that Lord Houghton has agreed to be chairman of this body and that the other members will be my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), the former Secretary of State for Scotland, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber).
Finally, this episode has raised once again the question whether the present definition and classification of official secrets, and the arrangements for their protection, is right. This is ground that has already been covered by the Franks Report which the Government have been considering. The Government hope to bring forward their own proposals as soon as possible for reforming the Official Secrets Act in a way which will make its coverage both more limited and more effective.
The House will be informed of the result of these further steps.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I thank the Prime Minister for making this statement? I understand from his last sentence that this is a first report and that he will be making others when he has the reports of the further investigation.
Is he aware that we are very disturbed that, after fairly extensive inquiries over some time, we are no nearer to resolving this abuse of trust, and we therefore welcome his decision to bring in the police to find out who was responsible for these disclosures and how they occurred? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we also welcome his decision to set up a Committee of three Privy Counsellors to inquire into the process and procedure under which Cabinet Minutes are circulated.
The statement was very detailed, and we shall wish to study it carefully before making too many comments, but the Prime Minister referred to two matters of very grave concern. The first was that the strict procedures for handling the

document were not observed and the second was that the Limited Circulation Annex was shown to individuals outside the Private Office concerned. Were these individuals only civil servants who would need to see the minute for the purpose of carrying out their professional duty in relation to the substance of the minute or was it more serious than that?

The Prime Minister: I am much obliged to the right hon. Lady for her general observations. Of course I shall keep the House informed of further results if I can.
The strict procedures were not observed for what were thought to be good administrative reasons in some cases. But these reasons must be overridden. For example, where a Department has the Minister's office on the north side of the Thames but important elements of the Department are situated on the south side of the river, one can see that the Department might drift into the position of saying "The Minister must see this document. Let us photo-copy it and send it across to him". This is the kind of thing that happened. It is understandable, but rules were broken and that must stop. This will cause certain administrative inconvenience in the case of Cabinet documents. I regret it, but I can see no other way.
The individuals outside Private Offices to whom I referred were not, to my knowledge or the knowledge of Sir Douglas Allen, improper persons. It may have been political advisers or junior Ministers who required to see it and came into the Minister's Private Office to read it. Sometimes it went to their offices and was conveyed to their attention for them to see, probably in the same building, and maybe on the same floor. That is what I meant when I made that reference.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that the answer to that supplementary question is extremely illuminating? If the document were of such consequence and secrecy that it ought to be kept to a very small number, it is surprising that 34 copies were made. I hope that the Committee will look at the question of classification very closely.
I also take it not only that the Prime Minister will look at the Official Secrets Act but that his recommendation will


be brought in after hearing the recommendations of the three Privy Counsellors who are looking at the whole matter.
Lastly, from the first occasion when it was mentioned that there might have been a criminal offence in connection with this matter, we urged that the police should be called in, and we are very glad that this has now happened.

The Prime Minister: I think that it is not possible to get the number below 34. It might be possible to reduce it by two or three, and if the Committee of Privy Counsellors recommended that, it would be considered. But clearly every member of the Cabinet, as a start, is entitled to know the record of the meetings he attended. Then there are others. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman can appreciate that. I should have thought that the number of 34 was a very small one.
As to whether the document was properly graded, that is a different matter, but it does not remove the essential offence, which is that someone who had signed a document saying that he would not betray this trust has done so.

Mr. George Cunningham: Admitting that the transgression must be followed up and not forgiven, will the Prime Minister answer these two questions? First, was the document graded as secret or confidential? Secondly, is the Prime Minister satisfied that it was right to treat this document in the extremely secret way in which it was treated, given that no really important interest was involved at all?

The Prime Minister: The document was graded secret. The question whether it was graded properly is a matter of judgment on which everybody can have a different opinion. The fact is that it was graded as secret. People know what the rules are, and those rules were broken.

Mr. Aitken: Will the Prime Minister say what is the crime that is suspected and that the police are being called in to investigate? The Prime Minister has indicated that there is no longer a question of a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act in this matter. He has also indicated that theft is not involved, as the document was copied. Are the police being called in to investigate just a breach

of the rules or, if it is a crime, which criminal statute is involved?

The Prime Minister: I feel that some of these questions should be addressed to the Attorney-General, as it is after consultation with him that I have taken my decision. But, in regard to the general issue, people have signed a declaration, and that declaration has apparently been breached. That is what the police will be investigating.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Prime Minister has referred to the amendment of the Official Secrets Act. I assume that he means Section 2 thereof. Is it not the case that the introduction of a freedom of information Act would abolish the necessity for half of this unnecessary secrecy on subjects that really do not matter? Will he not agree that a freedom of information Act would stop all these leaks—official, unofficial and semiofficial?

The Prime Minister: I think that on that question the Government will have to reach their own conclusions and produce them. In the light of this matter I am having to change my own mind about the Official Secrets Act. I have been against any reform of it, for reasons that I will not go into now, but probably I shall have to desert that position and bring forward some proposals.
The Attorney-General has asked me to mention a matter that I omitted to answer. Perhaps the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) did not quite hear me at the time, but immunity has been extended by the Attorney-General only to Mr. Frank Field and those on the New Society magazine.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the great frankness of the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon, and welcome what he proposes to do. I should like, however, to ask him one important question. It concerns the positive vetting of the 24 political advisers who are now inside the Government machine. I must ask the Prime Minister whether these gentlemen or ladies are subject to the same precise positive vetting of their backgrounds to see whether they are politically reliable as applies to all civil servants.

The Prime Minister: The answer to that question, to my knowledge, is


"Yes". If I am incorrect I shall communicate with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Whitehead: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to extend immunity to the two journalists, Mr. Barker and Mr. Field, will be widely welcomed, as they were doing no more than printing material which was apparently given to them?
Will my right hon. Friend say what the position will be if the police inquiries turn up an alleged culprit, and such a person is prosecuted? Is there any possibility of contempt proceedings being taken against these journalists if—as they would have to continue to do—they refused to reveal sources?

The Prime Minister: This is a matter on which I would prefer the Attorney-General to answer, when questions are put to him. As to what would happen if the police were to find whoever betrayed this trust, we must wait and see what circumstances are revealed.

Mr. Stanbrook: As a matter of public policy, is it wise to grant immunity to the publishers? After all, if there were no recipients of stolen property there would be no thieves.

The Prime Minister: This is not my decision, and I do not wish to comment on it. It is a decision of the Attorney-General, and I think it must properly be left there. I have not sought to influence the Attorney-General in any way. I understand that it is not uncommon—the hon. Gentleman will know this from his legal experience, no doubt, and will correct me if I am wrong—to grant immunity in certain circumstances in order to assist inquiries. But I should prefer these questions to be dealt with not by the Government on a political basis but by the Attorney-General.

Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is very refreshing to hear any Prime Minister admit that he ought to change his view on something? I trust that that will be followed by other Ministers.
Will my right hon. Friend perhaps spell out a little more clearly the terms of reference of the Committee of Privy Counsellors? Will the Privy Counsellors be looking into the question of non-attributable discussions that take place between

the Press and Ministers? This has a bearing on the issue that we have just been discussing.

The Prime Minister: I have tried to give the House the quickest report I could, in view of the complaint last Monday. As the House knows, I returned to this country only on Tuesday, and was away yesterday; therefore I have not yet agreed the terms of reference of the Privy Counsellors. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that. Basically, they will be concerned with looking at the procedures for handling papers and handling documents inside the Government, to see whether there is any weakness in the machine that ought to be tightened.
I am glad to be able to acknowledge that I changed my mind. Perhaps that might encourage my hon. Friend to do that sometimes.

Mr. Lawson: In the light of possible future occurrences of a still more serious nature, does the Prime Minister think that in the course of his general review it might be a good idea to extend to Sir Douglas Allen the Draconian investigatory powers given under Schedule 6 of the present Finance Bill to ordinary tax inspectors; and, if not, why not?

The Prime Minister: I do not know.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter will obviously have to come up again.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker: Business Statement—the Lord President.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 5TH JULY—Supply [27th Allotted Day]: there will be a debate on immigration, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration of EEC Document R/2274/75 on Sheepmeat Régime.
TUESDAY 6TH JULY—Motion on the White Papers on Pay and Prices Policy and the related Orders.
Motion on Compensation for Limitation of Prices (British Gas Corporation) Order.
WEDNESDAY 7TH JULY—Supply [28th Allotted Day]: Conclusion of the debate on pay and prices policy.
Consideration of EEC Document R/3070/75 on Units of Measurement.
THURSDAY 8TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Race Relations Bill.
FRIDAY 9TH JULY—Debate on the First Report of the Select Committee on Direct Elections To The European Assembly, House of Commons Paper No. 489.
Consideration of EEC Documents R/1361/73 and R/877/75 on Public Service Contracts.
MONDAY 12TH JULY—Private Members' motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, Third Reading of the Development Land Tax Bill, and remaining stages of the Iron and Steel (Amendment) Bill.

Mrs. Thatcher: I should like to raise just two points. The first is about the debate on Tuesday and Wednesday on pay and prices policy. On what motion will that debate be held? Will the Leader of the House make clear that the second day is a Supply Day which is only lent and not given, and that the Opposition would like it back, please? The Government are used to borrowing, so we want a little repayment.
The second point is that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the situation with regard to water supply is very serious indeed. Will he arrange for a statement to be made next week so that we know what emergency action should be taken before an emergency occurs?

Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Lady for both of her questions. I shall certainly try to return anything that we borrow, but I cannot promise to do so next week. Certainly I acknowledge that the Opposition have assisted us with the offer of a Supply Day to enable the House to have the two-day debate, which is of assistance to everyone. The debate would be, I think, on a "take note" motion. although obviously amendments could be put down if that were desired by the Opposition or anyone else. Then there

are the related Orders which, although I have set them down on the Tuesday, I imagine, if it were wished that they be voted upon, could be voted upon on the Wednesday.
I hope that a statement will be made to the House tomorrow about the drought.

Mr. Grimond: With his remarkable command of English, will the Leader of the House explain a little more about "sheepmeat regime"? My constituents know about sheep, meat and regime. It the phrase a direct translation from some Common Market document, or does it mean a diet for those who have to eat sheepmeat?

Mr. Foot: I do not think that it has anything to do with diet. I think that the phrase is due to the language used in Brussels, which we have to use in the House of Commons.

Mr. Bidwell: What form will the debate on Monday take on immigration? Will that be on a Government motion?

Mr. Foot: It will be on the Adjournment. It is a Supply Day. It is a subject chosen by the Opposition.

Mr. Pym: As the Leader of the House must be aware that the Council of Ministers has decided to change the proposals in the EEC document in relation to sheep-meat, would it not be more sensible to have a debate on that subject when the Council's present proposals have been produced so that we can get down to the new situation?

Mr. Foot: If that is more convenient for the House, we shall do that. We were recommended by the Scrutiny Committee to have this debate, but if it is more convenient to have the debate at a later stage, we shall see whether we can do that—although there have been requests from the House that we should have some of these debates earlier.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Once again there will be great disappointment that the Public Lending Right Bill is not included in the business for next week. Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a matter that is not in contention between the two Front Benches? Is he further aware, therefore, that we could do with some non-contentious business? Would it not be a very good time to put in that


business? There have been occasions over the last two or three weeks when it could have been slipped in and we could have taken it. Why not take the opportunity now?

Mr. Foot: I fully share my hon. Friend's disappointment that we have not proceeded further with the Bill, but, once again, I give him the assurance that I have given him on two or three previous occasions. This is a Government measure that has the full backing of the Government and we wish to press ahead with it as soon as it is convenient for the House to do so.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there was great resentment in the fishing communities at the betrayal of their interests by the original Tory negotiators before we entered the Common Market and that this was compounded by their Labour successors by fishing not being on the agenda in the renegotiations? Following the pusillanimous and unacceptable statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food this week, does the Leader of the House agree that it is now essential that we should have a debate on fishery limits as quickly as possible?

Mr. Foot: I am sorry that I cannot promise a debate on this important subject. I fear also that I cannot accept all the adjectives used by the hon. Gentleman. A statement was made on the subject by my right hon. Friend. We shall have to see what are the possibilities of a debate later.

Mr. Gould: When will the Order giving effect to the EEC directive on eviscerated chickens be laid before the House? Will it be subject to the affirmative or the negative procedure?

Mr. Foot: I cannot yet give a date. I know that there is considerable feeling in many parts of the House about this matter and a desire that it should be debated, hut we shall have to see what are the possibilities for a debate.

Mr. John Davies: Returning to the subject of sheepmeat, the Leader of the House will no doubt be aware that since the Scrutiny Committee recommended this matter for debate, his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has, in evidence to the Scrutiny Committee, made it

abundantly clear that there were to be substantial changes to this particular proposal. Surely it would be wiser to wait until those substantial changes have been made and laid before us.

Mr. Foot: There are some problems about the time that we would have available for debates later, but I fully acknowledge what the right hon. Gentleman said. Since in particular the Scrutiny Committee, over which he presides, has given us so much assistance on this matter, when he makes that suggestion I shall certainly give it serious consideration.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that last week various representations were made to him about medical facilities for urgent cases in the House? What would any of us say about a factory employing 3,000 people in any of our constituencies which did not have at any rate normal nursing facilities? Considering the number of Members, visitors, journalists and all those who work in this place, is it not a scandal that something is not done about this matter?

Mr. Foot: I quite agree. Following the representations made to me a week ago, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Prescott) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), we have taken some steps. I hope that by the beginning of next week we shall have some facilities provided in the House, with a State-registered nurse and facilities on the premises. I hope that they will be in operation at the beginning of next week, on a temporary basis. Thereafter, as soon as we can we shall have them on a permanent basis. That is what the House would want. Certainly we have got on with it as fast as we could.

Mr. Peyton: Why did we not have the usual statement yesterday on European business for July? Instead, there was a rather unsatisfactory Written Answer—in column 102 of Hansard—merely saying that a forecast of the business had been deposited in the Library. Will the right hon. Gentleman see whether we could go back to the former practice?
When is it likely that the House will have a chance of debating the considerable volume of paper which has been generated by the Department of the Environment—concerning rates, water and


transport? All three are awaiting the attention of the House.

Mr. Foot: On the first question, I am not sure whether the commitment of the Government to have a statement on the EEC business ahead is absolute. I know that there have been statements on most occasions. If the commitment is absolute, I shall certainly see why it was not honoured on this occasion. I thought that there was some possibility of variation, but I shall examine the matter.
I shall not comment on each of the other matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman because I think that they have been raised previously. I cannot promise immediate debates on all those different subjects, although obviously they are all important subjects that will have to be debated in the House before we can proceed to legislation on them.

Mr. McCrindle: Does the Leader of the House accept that there are many who do not necessarily take the Government's view that the best way of obtaining representation for members of occupational pension schemes is through trade union representation? May we have a debate on this subject and the subject matter of the White Paper before the Government introduce legislation?

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise an early debate on this subject. I know that there is great interest in it in the House. The White Paper is being published. There is widespread discussion on the subject and I am sure that there will be plenty of time for full discussion before we come to laying legislation before the House.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made by the Secretary of State for Industry or the Secretary of State for Trade about the use of selective import controls, because as investment is needed for British industry, we want some of that industry left in which to reinvest?
Does my right hon. Friend think that this is the weather to take a long cool look at the House of Lords, which he has been promising for some time, because we are facing obstruction on the Floor of this House and I am sure we shall face obtruction on the Floor of that House over some controversial legis-

lation? Can he now say whether we shall reassemble on 1st September and get the backlog of legislation out of the way? Does he not think that we should have a short summer break and come back to work early?

Mr. Foot: Obviously the question of selective import controls is one of major economic policy. I cannot promise any statement on the subject although it could enter into the discussions which will take place on economic policy over the next few weeks. I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will take the opportunity to raise it.
In respect of a long cool look at the House of Lords, I cannot promise that we shall have a House of Lords (No. 3) Bill before the end of the recess. I do not believe that that would speed up the process. The House of Lords will have to take the legislation which we send from this House and, undoubtedly, very important legislation will be going to the House of Lords in the near future. I hope that the House of Lords will understand that this is legislation which comes from this elected House of Commons.
As for the date of 1st September, I do not have any statement to make on that subject. What I have said before is that it is the Government's intention to suit the convenience of the House as much as we possibly can but also to ensure that our legislation will be carried through.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: In view of the humiliating collapse of the Government last night in respect of the Education Bill, and the fact that no mention has been made of the Education Bill at all in next week's business, does this confirm the rumour going around the House that the Government will now drop this unwanted Bill?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman must be the only Member of this House who is unwise enough to believe so foolish a rumour. There is, of course, no possibility that the Government will drop the Bill. What we hope is that we shall make considerable progress on the Bill today. We are providing plenty of time for the Bill, and I hope that we shall make more progress than we made yesterday. There was certainly no humiliation of the Government yesterday. We won


all the debates and all the votes. Unfortunately, there were not as many votes as we would wish, but we hope that that will be remedied in future.

Mr. Torney: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that a more accurate answer to the question put to him by the acting Leader of the Liberal Party, in respect of the sheepmeat regime, would have been for him to explain to the House that the real meaning is that we can have a huge surplus mountain of mutton and lamb in the same way as we have in respect of beef, butter and milk powder?

Mr. Foot: If I had replied in those terms I might have been accused of introducing a controversial note, and the House knows how loath I am to do that.

Sir Frederic Bennett: The Leader of the House will probably have noticed the Early-Day Motion directing our attention to the presence in the country of a visitor from the Soviet Union which is just about as distasteful as that of Mr. Shelepin. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to make a statement on this matter, including not just this specific matter, but a more general one which would clarify the criteria on which this Government seem to admit some people to this country and not others? They are criteria which the rest of us find totally incomprehensible.

[That this House deplores the welcome extended by Her Majesty's Government to Professor Marat Vartanyan, self-confessed exponent of the use of psychiatry, including the compulsory administration of dangerous drugs and enforced detention in mental institutions in order to bring about the so-called political reform of dissidents, and the Kremlin's chief expert in this detestable perversion of medical ethics and practice; condemns the rôle, in particular, in his sustained persecution of Professor Bukovsky, endangering his life; and regards Her Majesty's Government's action as yet another shocking example of politically-motivated double standards, when looked at in the context of its recent refusal of entry to young Rhodesians to play cricket here solely on grounds of disapproval of some of their home government's political policies.]

Mr. Foot: I certainly do not accept the terms of the motion in the name of the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends. The gentleman to whom he refers is not in this country as a guest of the British Government. He is here as an individual, and that raises no question of political decisions such as the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. The hon. Gentleman's motion compares that visit with the Rhodesian situation, and the Rhodesian visit, but that was a question of giving support to an illegal régime. I am sorry that a motion giving comfort to an illegal régime should have been placed on the Order Paper by those who are supposed to uphold law and order.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House who is the Secretary of the Services Committee so that we can have a go at him before prices rise any further? I had to pay 25p for one baked apple.

Mr. Foot: I do not know whether I am responsible for my hon. Friend's apple but I am responsible for the Services Committee. If he wants to have a go at anyone on this subject he must have a go at me.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that amendments to the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, which will be necessary to give effect to his undertakings to the Scottish and Welsh National Parties, will be put down in good time so that these privileges may be examined to see whether they are not, in themselves, giving rise to further hybridity?

Mr. Foot: I am sure that such a possibility will not arise. Of course, we shall put down amendments in good time so that the House can discuss them. That is the proper way to proceed. It is most unfortunate that an Early-Day Motion should have been put down criticising those who had discussed the matter in the debate but we shall have time to discuss this matter further. That is what I said in reply to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who interrupted me during the debate, and that is the normal procedure in the House.

[That this House deplores the conduct of the Scottish and Welsh Nationalist Members of Parliament in declining to cast their votes at the end of the debate


on Aircraft and Shipbuilding Nationalisation on 29th June; is amazed that their change of heart was secured by an ambiguous and threadbare series of so-called assurances; notes with concern the prospect of a further extension of nationalisation which has already done so much damage to vital Scottish and Welsh industries like steel; expresses its contempt for political parties which seek to gather support on the basis of facing all ways on vital issues which affect the Scottish and Welsh nations and their peoples; and questions the concern for their country of Members of Parliament who refuse to vote against proposals to spend £300 million of taxpayers' money on nationalisation at a time when vital social services are being cut back because of shortage of public funds.]

Mr. Jay: If the debate on sheepmeat is to be postponed, may we at least have an assurance that the Minister of Agriculture will not sell the pass in Brussels before the debate is held?

Mr. Foot: I cannot accept such language, of course, but I understand that my right hon. Friend would desire that a debate on the matter takes place before decisions are taken at Brussels. That is the general term of the undertaking which has been given by the Government. My right hon. Friend knows that there has been some qualification of this, but that is what we are seeking to carry out.

Mr. Peter Mills: Returning to the regulation about poultry health, why cannot the Government bring this Order before the House? Does the Leader of the House realise that many poultry farmers, and those connected with the industry, are deeply concerned about this and must know where they stand? If I may say so, even the birds would like to know whether they will be eviscerated.

Mr. Foot: I will see what are the chances of bringing the Order forward for discussion.

Mr. Corbett: Can the Leader of the House promise a debate on the interim report of the Royal Commission on the Press before the recess?

Mr. Foot: I am sorry but I cannot do so because the time before the recess is taken up with extremely urgent business,

and I cannot promise debates on many important subjects such as that raised by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Tebbit: Has the Lord President noticed, perhaps because of the weather, or because of the Government's legislative programme, that a great many Members on both sides of the House have fallen to discussing the possible dates for the recess? Would he not agree, particularly for those hon. Members who have children at school, and family commitments, that it would be highly desirable if we did not behave in this somewhat odd way over the options open to the Government in this matter? Would he not agree that it would be better if he said early what the Government's intentions were concerning rising, and a possible return in September, or a possible extension of the Session beyond the normal time in October if the Government think fit?

Mr. Foot: I agree with the hon. Gentleman—particularly because of the representations which are made by those who have their family holidays fixed. I certainly appreciate that this is one of the factors which the Government have to take into account. The Government have difficulties of their own, too. I have already indicated that there will be a statement tomorrow about the water situation, and that may involve some extra time. That has to be taken into account, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter he has raised is one of the considerations that we are taking into account. Of course I would like to announce the dates much earlier, but I am sure the House appreciates what the difficulties are.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal to to the House? If hon. Members will ask crisp questions I will try to get everyone in, but I can only try.

Mr. George Cunningham: Does my right hon. Friend remember that it is about five weeks since the House set up the Sessional Committee on Procedure, the normal Procedure Committee, and that it is not free to do anything at all, even to meet, until the House refers some subject to it? Exactly why has my right Friend not brought forward a motion to


refer anything to that Committee yet? Will he do so soon?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend has a very good grievance. We should have put forward some of those proposals and I will do my best—I will not say to satisfy him, because that is always difficult—to go some way to satisfying him next week.

Mr. Mayhew: Will there be an early Bill to ratify the European Patent Convention? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the European Patent Office will open in Munich early next year and that United Kingdom patent agents stand to lose about 10,000 patent applications unless we ratify by then, with a possible loss of £10 million turnover to this country?

Mr. Foot: I appreciate what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. The matter has been raised with me. I cannot promise immediate legislation on the subject, but I appreciate the importance of the matter.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Following the conviction of Jersey Aviation Limited for supplying £l¼ million-worth of arms from the MoD depot at Chigwell to South Africa, may we have—in fact, are we not entitled to—an immediate statement from the Secretary of State for Defence, since his Department must have known the ultimate destination and if it did not know, it should have known, and was guilty of gross negligence? As there are other serious allegations of arms being supplied from this country to South Africa, are we not entitled to a statement from the Secretary of State?

Mr. Foot: I will ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consider a statement in the light of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Moate: If the right hon. Gentleman decides to defer the debate on Monday on the sheepmeat régime, would he seriously consider using the time to try to complete the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—bearing in mind that we have almost reached the end of that Bill and that it could be disposed of quite quickly?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman may have noted that his proposal has not met with immediate unanimous acceptance.

I shall consider the suggestion, but if we postpone—as we probably should—the sheepmeat régime discussion, we shall have to see what is the best course for the House.

Mr. Spearing: On Friday week, 9th July, my right hon. Friend has said that there will be a debate on direct elections and EEC documents on public service contracts. What is the nature of the motion that he will table?

Mr. Foot: It will be a "take note" motion.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In view of the Prime Minister's change of mind about the Official Secrets Act and the general wish of the House that this legislation should be reformed, will the Leader of the House arrange before the recess for a short debate on that Act? Before he replies, may I put one crisp point to him? Many of us recall how difficult it was to persuade the United States to give us access to nuclear secrets because of their concern about British security. As long as this matter is hanging around unanswered, there will be feelings in Washington, justified or otherwise, that there still may be a "sleeper" in Whitehall willing to give Western military secrets to our mutual enemies.

Mr. Foot: I think that the Prime Minister has dealt with the general matter in a way satisfactory to the House as a whole. I cannot promise a debate on the Official Secrets Act in general before the recess, but clearly what the Prime Minister has said is that fresh consideration is to be given to the question whether there should be legislation on the matter. The favourable reply that he has given on that subject is helpful and of course legislation would mean a debate in the House.

Mr. McNamara: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the Early-Day Motion, signed by nearly 100 hon. Members on this side, calling for an early statement by the Government on their acceptance of the principle of the need for decasualisation in the fishing industry? Is he aware of the deep resentment on Humberside and in the fishing ports that the Government failed to make this announcement as part of the statement on Monday?

[That this House welcomes the statement of the Minister of Agriculture,


Fisheries and Food that the Government will discuss with the unions and employers the feasibility of an arrangement for compensation for those fishermen directly affected by the Icelandic settlement who, because they do not have regular contracts of employment, are denied the benefits they might have otherwise received under the Redundancy Payments Acts: reminds the Government that this situation would not have arisen if fishermen enjoyed the same terms and conditions of employment as shore-based workers; and calls upon the Government to declare its commitment to the immediate decasualisation of the fishing industry and to initiate discussions with the Transport and General Workers Union and the vessel owners to ensure that objective.]

Mr. Foot: I know that there are considerable feelings on this subject. When I was at the Department of Employment I took part in discussions with the Ministry of Agriculture on the possibilities of decasualisation. In view of the number of the signatories to that motion, I recognise that there is strong feeling on this side on the matter. I cannot promise immediate action but I am sure that the Government will recognise that this is the line on which my hon. Friends wish us to proceed.

Mr. Boscawen: In view of the grave situation facing the shoe manufacturing industry, which situation is going on and on, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade to make an early statement on what he is doing about it, if anything?

[That this House would welcome Government Ministers, when proclaiming their support of an incomes policy, drawing attention to the fact that hundreds of Peers of the Realm are appointed to well-paid part-time jobs, or on a tax-free expense allowance, and asks the following when declaring their support for an incomes policy to state their various appointments and incomes derived therefrom:


Body
Name and Appointment
Amount of Salary or fee


Equal Opportunities Commission
Lord Allen of Fallowfield, member (part-time)
£16 per day


BBC
Lord Allan of Kilmahew (part-time)
£1,000 per annum



Lord Feather of the City of Bradford (part-time)




Lord Greenhill of Harrow (part-time)



Community Relations Commission
Lord Pitt, Deputy Chairman (part-time)
£1,500 per annum



Lord Campbell of Eskan (part-time)
£16 per day



Baroness Serota (part-time)



Women's Royal Voluntary Service
Baroness Pike, Chairman (part-time)
£6,000 per annum


Port of London Authority
Lord Aldington, Chairman (part-time)
£10,000 per annum


Milton Keynes New Town Development Corporation
Lord Campbell of Eskan, Chairman (part-time)
£7,415 per annum

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise an early statement. My right hon. Friend has made statements on the subject, I understand, in the not-too-distant past, but I shall see whether a fresh statement is required.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: In considering the date of the recess, may I take it that the Lord President understands that Scottish school children get their holidays at the end of June and go back to school on 14th August? Will he bear that in mind when he tries to take us into August?

Mr. Foot: I am not sure whether it is more beneficial to the House that we should have the hon. Lady's presence or her absence. Sometimes it is one, sometimes the other, and we shall try to work the matter out conveniently for both of us.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Has my right hon. Friend seen the three Early-Day Motions signed by one of the most important Members of the House, drawing attention to the hundreds of millions of pounds per year which are being paid out to Members of the House of Lords on a part-time basis? They are drawing thousands of pounds each in expenses which could be cut without hardship or suffering for anyone. When the Government consider any such cuts, will they make these as quick and severe as possible? Hon. Members on this side would give 100 per cent. support to such action.

British Waterways Board
Lord Feather of the City of Bradford, Vice-Chairman (part-time)
£2,250 per annum


Housing Corporation
Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, Deputy Chairman (part-time)
£3,840 per annum


Development Commission
Lord Northfield, Chairman (part-time)
£5,000 per annum


Telford New Town Development Corporation
Lord Northfield, Chairman (part-time)
£4,432 per annum


Commissioners for Local Administration in England]
Baroness Serota, Chairman (part-time)
£13,310 per annum

[That this House would welcome Government Ministers, when proclaiming their support of an incomes policy, drawing attention to the fact that hundreds of Peers of the Realm are appointed to well-paid part-time jobs, or on a tax-free expense allowance, and asks the following when declaring their support for an incomes policy to state their various appointments and incomes derived therefrom:

Body
Name and Appointment
Amount of Salary after Tax


Chairman of the Council on Tribunals
Lord Tweedsmuir (part-time)
£5,164 per annum


British National Oil Corporation
Lord Balogh, Deputy Chairman (part-time)
£8,950 per annum


National Water Council
Lord Nugent (part-time)
£8,450 per annum


British Railways Board
Lord Taylor of Gryfe (part-time)
£3,000 per annum


Welsh National Water Development Authority
Lord Brecon (part-time)
£6,175 per annum


The Land Authority for Wales
Lady White (part-time)
£6,500 per annum


Cwmbran Development Corporation
Lord Raglan (part-time)
£4,432 per annum


Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Panel
Lord Briginshaw (part-time)
£1,000 per annum


British National Oil Corporation
Lord Briginshaw (part-time)
£1,000 per annum


Clwyd Area Health Authority
Lord Kenyon, Chairman (part-time)
£2,000 per annum


Telford New Town Corporation
Viscount Boyne, Deputy Chairman (part-time)
£1,966 per annum


British Waterways Board
Baroness White (part-time)
£1,000 per annum


Local Government Staff Commission
Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, Chairman (part-time)
£250 per annum


National Freight Corporation
Lord Greene of Harrow and Weald (part-time)
£1,000 per annum


Northampton New Town Development Corporation
Lord Hirshfield, Deputy Chairman (part-time)
£1,966 per annum


Warrington New Town Development Corporation
Lord Hamnett, Chairman (part-time)
£4,432 per annum


Southern Electricity Board
Lord Greene of Harrow and Weald (part-time)
£1,000 per annum


UK Atomic Energy Authority
Lord Kearton (part-time)
£1,000 per annum


Central Electricity Generating Board
Lord Kearton (part-time)
£1,000 per annum]

[That this House would welcome Government Ministers, when proclaiming their support of an incomes policy, drawing attention to the fact that hundreds of Peers of the Realm are appointed to well-paid part-time jobs, or on a tax-free expense allowance, and asks the following when declaring their support for an incomes policy to state their various appointments and incomes derived therefrom:


Body
Name and Appointment
Amount of Fee or Salary


British Steel Corporation
Lord Layton (full-time member)
£21,830 per annum


British Steel Corporation
Viscount Weir (part-time member)
£1,000 per annum


British Steel Corporation
Lord Gregson (part-time member)
£1,000 per annum


National Enterprise Board Chairman
Lord Ryder (part-time chairman)
£31,850 per annum


National Research Development Corporation
Lord Schon (part-time chairman)
£2,000 per annum


Post Office
Lord Pitt (part-time member)
£1,000 per annum


East Kilbride &amp; Stonehouse Development Corporation
Lord Hughes (part-time chairman)
£4,432 per annum

Forestry Commission
Lord Taylor of Gryfe, D.L. (part-time chairman)
£6,200 per annum


Meat &amp; Livestock Commission Consumers Committee
Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath (part-time chairman)
£1,390 per annum


Meat &amp; Livestock Commission
As above (part-time member)
£1,000 per annum


Review Board for Government Contracts
Viscount Caldecote, D.S.C. (part-time)
£1,350 per annum


Value Added Tax Tribunals
The Lord Jacques (part-time)
£20 per day plus travel expenses


Special Adviser to the Chancellor
Professor Lord Kaldor (part-time)
£14,000 per annum


Northern Ireland Tourist Board
Lord O'Neil, D.L., T.D. (part-time)
£1,000 per annum plus £750 per annum expenses and travelling and other expenses incurred on business outside of Northern Ireland


Board of the Local Enterprise Development Unit
Marquis of Hamilton (part-time)
£1,350 per annum plus £513·05 expenses

Mr. Foot: I do not think that the matter can be dealt with by that method, but I am sure that the terms of my hon. Friend's motions will be noted by those concerned.

Mr. Tom King: Did the right hon. Gentleman hear the Prime Minister's statement that the only agreement reached with the nationalist parties was that contained in his own speech at the close of Tuesday's debate? Would he therefore explain how a statement has been released by Plaid Cymru which includes, in what it calls the "package" agreed with the Government, a whole lot of matters not disclosed to the House, including the possibility of a referendum, and the statement:
A further significant commitment has been given by the Government which cannot be disclosed at this time."?

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. Certainly nothing was agreed by the Government outside what I stated to the House. Any statements about agreements on referenda or anything of the sort are completely without foundation. What was put to the House in the debate was in my speech. That is the situation and that is what we stand by. Of course, it was also made clear by me in the debate that it was on the basis of that statement that we should be able to proceed to later discussions and to any amendments if hon. Members wished to put them down.

Mr. Marten: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has noticed Early-Day

Motion No. 477 entitled "Hot Weather and Cool Dress" for the staff.

[That this House believes that during the summer months, and particularly when the temperature is above average, the stall of this House should be more appropriately attired; and that this matter be referred to the appropriate quarters for action without delay.]

That motion requires action. What action has been taken? Will he take some next week?

May I support the general campaign for eviscerated chicken to be put on the menu for debate in this House because we want to chuck it out before the recess?

Mr. Foot: I have already answered the question about eviscerated chicken. I know how many hon. Members wish to have a debate on the subject. As for cooler dress, relaxations have been arranged, I understand. I am all in favour of them and believe that they should apply to Members of Parliament, too. I do not see why we should go around dressed like a bunch of disappointed, dyspeptic stockbrokers. Hon. Members might set the fashion for the members of staff and I hope, that the members of staff will have every encouragement to dress as suitably as they can to such a season.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the right hon. Gentleman think carefully before postponing the debate on the sheepmeat regime, bearing in mind that in these agricultural matters "too soon" quickly becomes "too late"? We want to have this debate in the formative stage and


not after the final proposals have been formulated.

Mr. Foot: I appreciate the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was for that reason that the motion was put down for discussion on Monday next. However, I have received representations, including representations from the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), that we should postpone it because there has been a considerable alteration in the Order. I will look at the matter in the light of both representations and see what may be convenient for the House. I will also take into account what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), that the House wants a debate before a decision is taken.

Mr. Cormack: So that we may debate the highly controversial legislation still before the House in proper detail without a guillotine motion, will the Leader of the House agree that this Session should be extended until Christmas and the next Session truncated?

Mr. Foot: It is much too early to decide such questions.

Mr. Aitken: Does the Lord President recall that the House was promised a debate on foreign affairs before the Summer Recess and can he give an assurance that, despite the muddled situation of the Government's programme, that promise will be kept?

Mr. Foot: Since I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's premise about a muddle I cannot agree with his conclusion, and I cannot promise a debate on foreign affairs before the recess. I will see what was said and whether we are bound by any undertaking, but I have indicated that we have a serious amount of legislation and other important business to transact, and I am sure that the House would wish to put first things first.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: A few minutes ago my right hon. Friend told me that if I wanted to have a go at anybody on account of the food served in the House, I should have a go at him. Can you inform me, Mr. Speaker, whether that means that my right hon. Friend is responsible for eight hon. Members who had to be nodded through the Division Lobby last week because they had contracted

food poisoning from House of Commons food?

Mr. Foot: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is the Lord President seeking to answer the point of order?

Mr. Foot: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I was just about to tell the House that I intended to make an exception by calling the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) but in general, once I have drawn attention to the fact that I want crisp questions, if people have not been rising earlier seeking to be called, I do not intend to call them, or the debate will go on until the recess.

Mr. Noble: Will my right hon. Friend note that renegotiation of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement will shortly begin and, in view of that and of the fact that the Government have not succeeded, during the present negotiations, in establishing more than a framework, does he agree that we should have an early debate on these negotiations, so that hon. Members representing textile constituencies can make their views known?

Mr. Foot: I certainly appreciate the position of the textile industry and the difficulties it is now encountering. On a number of occasions my hon. Friends concerned have drawn these to the attention of my right hon. Friends concerned. I will see whether there are possibilities for arranging for further such representations, but I fear that I cannot promise an actual debate on the subject. Possibly there could be a further statement.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an answer to my question.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know the answer. That is why I tried to forget it.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL

Mr. Tom King: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely, the prima facie evidence that secret arrangements about the Shipbuilding and Aircraft Industries Bill have been made between the Leader


of the House and the Government and certain hon. Members of this House without the knowledge or consent of this House, and that this may have led to a vote being taken in a recent debate under false pretences.
I understand that my duty under Standing Order No. 9 is to satisfy you, Mr. Speaker, under the criteria of the Standing Order. This is a very specific matter because it was dealt with quite specifically by the Prime Minister today in Answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when he said that the only undertakings given and agreements made were those mentioned in the rather turgid opening of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House on Tuesday night. I have a copy of that speech—an extract from the Official Report. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the whole of the relevant passage is contained in columns 323 to 326 of the Official Report of 29th June.
I also have in my hand the report of the Press release from the Plaid Cymru Paty stating the agreement that it has reached. It has said that this was the package agreed with the Government. I accept in good faith this statement that these undertakings were given; and we were aware that considerable negotiations were taking place during the course of that debate to see whether an agreed statement could be made. We are aware that things were in writing so that there was no question of any misunderstanding in that form. This is very specific because there are specific items here which were specifically excluded from the statement made by the Leader of the House.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. King: A specific point was that the Government would consider holding a referendum of employees of the company to ascertain their attitude towards nationalisation—if I may say so, quite an excellent idea, which we have long supported. But there was no mention whatsoever of this in the statement of the Leader of the House.
Further, and this is perhaps the most serious matter, the statement added that

a significant commitment had been given by the Government which cannot be disclosed at present. How can that possibly be reconciled with the statement of the Prime Minister that the total agreement was contained in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House?
The importance of this matter will certainly not be lost on you, Mr. Speaker, for you are fully aware of the strength of feeling on this crucial issue, and it will be within your observation that the attitude of the nationalist parties was crucial to the result of the vote on 29th June. As we shall shortly be proceeding to further stages of this Bill it is obviously a matter of great urgency that this should be propertly considered.
You will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite intolerable if secret deals are to be done in this House and if the word of the Prime Minister is to be questioned here as a result of his Answer at Question Time today. We believe—and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, fully within the correct criteria of Standing Order No. 9—that this matter should have urgent consideration and that it should be made clear to the House whether in fact a deal has been done or whether the nationalist parties have been double-crossed by the Government, or what is the true situation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made an application under Standing Order No. 9 and I must rule on it. The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely, the prima facie evidence that secret arrangements about the Shipbuilding and Aircraft Industries Bill have been made between the Leader of the House and certain hon. Members without the knowledge and consent of the House, and that this may have led to a vote having been taken under false pretences.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reason for my decision. I have given that consideration to the representations the hon. Member has made, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing


Order and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does Mr. Speaker consider that it is in accordance with the best traditions of this House that this matter should have been raised without notice being given to the persons under attack, namely, Plaid Cymru? Had they known of it, I am certain that they would have been here. [Hon. Members: "Where are they?"] I do not think it behoves two parties whose attendance is very poor to start on that tack. I point out that the attendance record of hon. Members on this Bench is very good, so all this noise is quite absurd.
It is not in accordance with the best traditions of this House that hon. Members should be attacked without being given notice in advance—

Mr. Speaker: I have, of course, noted the hon. Lady's excellent attendance record in the Chamber. However, when an application is made under Standing Order No. 9, no one is able to speak, except Mr. Speaker to give his ruling. That is why the Lord President of the Council was not able to intervene, as no doubt he wished to do. Therefore, this is not a case where I can rule whether notice was given to hon. Members that a matter was being raised.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your advice? I believe that it may be helpful

to the whole House. The Lord President said that the statement of Plaid Cymru on this matter was false. He said that in terms today. May I ask you to rule whether it is proper for any party to put out, in an official statement, matters about the conduct of the affairs of this House which are patently untrue?

Mr. Speaker: The House is not to pursue the question of the Standing Order No. 9 application which I have rejected. It is out of order to try to keep that issue alive.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &C.

Ordered,
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Fiji) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

Ordered,
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Romania) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

Ordered,
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Spain) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.

Ordered,
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (The Democratic Republic of the Sudan) Order 1976 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Tinn.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

New Clause 17

SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL TREATMENT

'(1) In section 33(2) of the Education Act 1944 leave out from 'practicable' to end and insert "provide for their education in ordinary schools maintained by a local education authority or in ordinary schools not so maintained, other than one notified by the Minister to the local education authority to be, in his opinion, unsuitable for the purpose, but where that is impracticable the arrangements may provide for the giving of such education in special schools appropriate for that category.".

(2) After section 34(4) of the said Act insert the following subsection:—
4A. If a local education authority decides that a child requires special educational treatment, they shall not provide such treatment in a special school without the consent of the parent unless the parent cannot be found or is incapable of giving consent or is withholding his consent unreasonably."'.—[Mr. Ashley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Jack Ashley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take the following amendments:

No. 5, in Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out 'affecting' and insert 'prohibiting'.

No. 14, in Clause 1, page 1, line 21, at end insert:
'but this subsection shall not be construed as permitting the provision of secondary education for pupils suffering from disability of body but not of mind in schools where arrangements for the admission of pupils are based wholly or partly on selection by reference to intellectual ability or academic aptitude'.

Mr. Ashley: The House will be glad to hear that I propose to speak to these amendments without filibustering.
The clause and the amendments are designed to reduce the dependence of disabled children on special schooling. They provide that special schooling shall be allowed only when normal schooling is

definitely impracticable. Together the clause and the amendments aim to give disabled children precisely the same education provision as other children.
The clause and the amendments emphasise the need for integration. I believe that it is quite wrong for any group of disabled people to be forced to mix only with a group of similarly disabled people. For example, it is wrong that the blind should be compelled to mix only with the blind, or the deaf with the deaf, or the crippled with the crippled It is of paramount importance that we enable these children to mix with non-disabled children and thereby to extend their educational horizons. In so doing, we shall be ensuring that they also extend their social and economic horizons.
"Integration" is a very easy word to use, but what does it mean in terms of this clause? First, I think that the House should recognise that the essential element of any disability is loneliness. It does not matter what the disability is—blindness, deafness, being paralysed, being spastic, suffering from multiple sclerosis or epilepsy. Any disablement means loneliness for the disabled person. Often this is not recognised by people who are not disabled. The trouble is that disabled people are often ill at ease when they first begin to move back into what I call normal society.
No one knows until he is disabled what it means to have the nod and smile from the public and then be passed by on the other side of the street or even in the same building. Severely disabled people can rely only on their families and close friends to ease this appalling burden of loneliness. That is why integration is of such paramount importance.
It is a two-fold process. First, it enables disabled children to learn to mix with non-disabled children, which is essential. But, equally important, it enables non-disabled children to begin to understand disablement and thereby to create for themselves an entirely new dimension of understanding of human nature and of mankind.
This two-way process will be furthered by the new clause. It will enable disabled children and non-disabled children to understand each other better.
In my view, it is essential for this process to start at the earliest possible age.


The understanding of human fellowship is best developed at the earliest possible stage of children's development so that they can begin to understand their capabilities and their capacity for mixing with others.
In addition to that important aspect the new clause and the amendments provide for the requirement of parental consent. I believe that parental consent to a disabled child's having special education is of greater importance than parental consent is normally, and normally it is of supreme importance. The reason for that is that only the parents of a disabled child understand the specific problems created by a severe disability. That is why parental consent must loom large in any consideration of the education of a severely disabled child. Only a parent is aware of the crucial need for the family background, and it has to be said that many special schools take children away from the family background. The rôle of the parents, therefore, is all important, and that is why we have stressed its significance in the clause and in the amendments.
I come now to rather more difficult aspects of the clause and the amendments. The question is what we do about them. I believe that a very powerful case can be made out for the clause and the amendments, and I hope that I have made a modest contribution to it.
But we have to recognise that this is not a new problem. It has been with us for many generations. Successive Governments have done very little about it. The burden does not rest only with this Government. It rests with preceding Administrations, and we must face the fact that very little has been done.
It would be both foolish and unfair to place all the burden on this Government when they are facing the grave economic difficulties that they inherited from the previous Administration, and this places the advocates of the clause and the amendments in a fairly serious dilemma. What should we do?
There is the possibility of a certain party political bias in any discussion of a clause of this kind, even though many of us manage to extirpate party political

considerations from the problems of disablement. We are proud of the success of the all-party group in eschewing party politics. With the exception of a number of respected members of the Opposition, such as the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), whose sincerity and fine work the House cannot doubt, and a few of his colleagues who work regularly on the all-party disablement group, I suspect any ardent advocacy of instant solutions by Opposition Members, simply because of their silence in years gone by. I make no accusation of a wilful attempt to make party political capital. However, I suggest that they treat this clause with caution. They should listen carefully to the Minister.
I have had discussions with all the Ministers in the Department of Education. I am deeply impressed by their sincerity and their great anxiety to do what they can to help. They have certain fears about the possible repercussions of the clause, as it is clearly mandatory. It will require a considerable increase in public expenditure.
The House knows that for many years a number of my colleagues and I have sought increased public expenditure for the disabled. We have had a fair degree of success. But we cannot win them all. We cannot force the Government all the time, by means of our voices or votes, to capitulate on every issue. Given the assurances that we have received from the Minister in our discussions, I am confident that it will not be necessary to press this clause.
I asked the House to debate the clause as it is of great importance. I want to hear the views of hon. Members on both sides expressed as strongly and vigorously as possible. After the Minister has spoken, we shall be able to see what we may do about not pressing the clause. That will depend on the debate.

Mr. John Hannam: We have great pleasure in supporting this worthy clause, which was moved by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who has earned so much respect from all Members of Parliament for his work on behalf of the handicapped. Normally we debate the affairs of the adult disabled and try to discover measures to improve their conditions at


work or at home. Today we are debating a matter of greater importance—how we may start disabled children in their lives.
The new clause and the accompanying amendments refer to the important area of education for the handicapped. I am disappointed that some of the other new clauses that deal with the integration and access of disabled people and children to normal schools were not selected. They would have combined well and given an opportunity for a full and worthwhile debate. I hope that we shall have another opportunity to bring all these subjects into focus.
4.45 p.m.
New Clause 17 results from close consultations with the redoubtable and well-known Peter Large, Chairman of the Association of Disabled Professionals, and Martin Milligan, Chairman of the joint Education Committee of the National Federation of the Blind and the Association of Blind and Partially Sighted Teachers and Students. Those organisations and hon. Members who are concerned in the campaign for the integration of disabled people into normal life have become increasingly alarmed at the lack of progress being made in this country in secondary education for handicapped children.

For a number of years Ministers have paid lip-service to that major objective. But in the Bill we find that the Government—albeit by accident—are enshrining the principle of special schools and the segregation of disabled children in them.

I do not wish to become embroiled and I know that the hon. Gentleman tried to resist the temptation to become embroiled in the political argument about comprehensivisation. This problem rises clear above party political strife. All Members of Parliament want to do their best for the disabled. But I wonder whether they realise that under this legislation the interests of disabled children are likely to be harmed. It is strange and hypocritical that in a measure designed to remove selection at 11 the Government are writing in and perpetuating selection and grammar schools for blind and disabled children.

We all seek as much education as possible for handicapped children in ordinary schools. That does not mean that every secondary school must cater for a small handful of handicapped children, with all the special equipment and staff that that would entail. We want local education authorities to make special provision in specified schools. For example, one school might have the staff and equipment available for the visually handicapped. Another school might have staff and equipment for deaf children. Another school might cater for other physical handicaps.

Let us take the instance of education for blind children, of whom there are about 600 of secondary school age. It would be impossible to require comprehensive education for them within the special schools sector that now exists. That would require one large comprehensive school for the whole of England and Wales, and that would not be sensible. It would perpetuate the present situation. The school would become a boarding establishment with all the disadvantages of separating the children from their families and other children.

If the Government mean what they say when they express their support for comprehensive education, they must apply the same rule to handicapped children, thereby giving a boost to the movement towards integrating education that we all want; otherwise it would be hypocrisy. Whatever system of secondary education we in Parliament ordain, it must be right to integrate as many handicapped children as possible into normal schools. The segregation of the handicapped from ordinary children is eminently undesirable. It does not prepare disabled children for the shock of competing in later life in the ordinary environment.

I quote from a report issued by the National Children's Bureau on further education, training and employment for handicapped school leavers. It says:
sending a child away from his home and community to live in a specially designed boarding school, often isolated in the country and protected from normal social conditions and life, would not seem the best way to fit a child to live in that community after he leaves school. Many of our school-leavers commented somewhat bitterly on their sense of isolation from home and the home environment which boarding education had produced.


The Vernon committee report, 'The Education of the Visually Handicapped' (1972), has recommended that even blind children (who are now all in boarding schools) should be educated so far as possible in day schools or at least within weekend travel of their home, through proper regional planning.

If we want a system of secondary education for all, we must ensure that handicapped children, who hold their own during their primary education, are integrated—not separated—during the years of further education between the ages of 12 and 16. They often drop back after holding their own in their primary education and finish up in dead-end schools, with no access to higher education and with limited jobs at the bottom of the employment pyramid. As Members of Parliament we deal with many such constituency cases.

If we mean what we say about full integration for physically handicapped people, we must provide education and the social mix that occurs in ordinary schools for all but the most severely handicapped.

Mr. Ronald Bell: My hon. Friend has several times referred to physically handicapped people. The clause appears to apply to all handicapped people, including the mentally handicapped. Are they included in the argument?

Mr. Hannam: The clause offers local authorities where reasonably possible the opportunity to provide for education in ordinary schools as well as in special schools. I was making the point that the most severely handicapped, those who are unable to mix in the ordinary schools, will still have to be provided for in special schools.
We are calling not for the end of the important and excellent special schools but for the incorporation into ordinary schools of as many children as possible. This happens in other countries, such as the United States and Sweden. In 1885 a Royal Commission pointed the way towards integration,. Now we seem to be taking a step backwards.
I accept that the Department of Education and Science has supported the desirability of ordinary schools classes for the handicapped throughout the years, but they are not attending such classes, as we see in our own areas. As the National Federation of the Blind has

pointed out, 97 per cent. of blind children and 42 per cent. of partially sighted children are educated in boarding schools and are therefore isolated from their homes and other children for most of the year.
Subsection (1) aims to reverse the priority in the Education Act 1944, which asserts that special school provision is preferable for the categories which the Minister defines by regulation. That Act should have been amended to reverse that priority.
I do not wish to decry the invaluable work done by our special schools. I have some of the best in my constituency. But paragraph 14 of Circular 2/75 from the Department said:
special schools should be regarded as providing a highly specialised form of education, designed to enable the handicapped child, whenever possible, to return to an ordinary school if this is considered beneficial.
That is exactly what we propose.
Subsection (2) allows the parent to insist upon education in an ordinary school unless that insistence is unreasonable—in other words, unless the degree of disability or lack of facilities mean that local education authorities could not, to the child's advantage, place him or her in an ordinary school. Many parents will prefer their child to be educated at a local school rather than having to go to a special boarding school, possibly many miles away. I know of parents having to give up their home and job and move to other areas to place their child in a special boarding school.
The crux of the matter is whether the local school is suitable. The purpose of the clause is to impose pressure to make as many local schools as possible suitable through the provision of special units. The Minister may say that that is now happening. Therefore, I hope that she will accept the purpose of the clause and agree that the wording of Clause 1 may not be in the best interests of disabled children.
Progress towards full integration is likely to be inhibited by the Bill, because it enshrines the concept of special, segregated education for disabled children. That is contrary to the whole purpose of our approach to disabled children's education over the past few years.
Although it will become illegal within the State system under the Bill to select


a group of non-disabled children for special educational treatment, the Bill will legitimise such selection in respect of disabled children. Under the present wording, local education authorities will be obliged to provide comprehensive education for all non-disabled children but will continue to escape that obligation for disabled children. They are the very children who need to be taken into normal surroundings, among other children. It is right to avoid having to close existing special schools, but that can be done without creating all the uncertainties which this legislation is creating.
The all-party Disablement Group, of which the hon. Gentleman is chairman and I am secretary, received the strongest representations on the clause. If the Minister does not accept it or the principle behind it, I hope that the House will show its support for the worthwhile cause of integration, which could save a great deal of money. The hon. Gentleman referred to the suggestion that there would be sharply increased public expenditure if the clause were approved. I disagree with that suggestion. It is the usual argument that we hear when we propose the implementation of a new system.
A recent answer by the Minister showed that 11,471 children were on the waiting lists for special schools. Therefore, there is a vast amount of public expenditure to be incurred if those numbers are to be accommodated. To accommodate them in ordinary schools through the provision of special units, stage by stage, would result in lower public expenditure rather than the increased expenditure needed to provide special schools.
I hope that the House will accept the case so ably put by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that we shall help intelligent and enterprising handicapped children to receive the education they deserve among normal children, close to their families, and not miles from home in special boarding schools. We support the clause wholeheartedly.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I welcome the clause, though I am a little embarrassed at being told that we do not need it because the powers already

exist. If they do, I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to use them rather more forcefully than in the past.
Over the years Ministers have put their arms round me and said "You are doing a great job, but—". My hon. Friend is probably the most attractive Minister ever to put her arm round me and say "We are doing our best". May I say "Margaret, bach, really do your best this time"? Unless we receive some firm promises, some of us will have to be anti-Government. My hon. Friend has a chance to put the record straight. I say to her "If the powers exist, use them. If you have to kick a few local authorities, kick them. If they do not carry out the law of the land, take the powers unto yourself."
For too long we have talked in the House about integration. Every time I speak on the subject I talk about the double disadvantage, that of the child who is disabled and who starts to receive education late. If there is one thing a disabled child needs, it is the opportunity to receive education early, not late, but it tends to be late. We tend to leave the disabled children outside our society.
I must say regretfully that under successive Governments the Department of Education and Science has not been very good. Its efforts have been disastrous because it has never recognised the need for integration. The situation is even more tragic for the blind. We do not integrate them and they are left outside our society. When we educate them, we split them into two groups—the able and the not-so-able blind. That is a sad reflection upon our society.
The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) made a profound case for integration and the avoidance of double-handicap. The Department must accept that it has enough power, that it can exert enough mandatory pressure, to insist upon integration being carried even further.
I can never understand why architects must build steps. The architect seems to say "Unless I have steps, it is not a building." The disabled child, the grandfather who cannot walk very well and the mother who wants to push a pram to school, have the right to access. Why


on earth do we ever allow buildings to be built without the Ministry first checking whether there is access? The Ministry simply stamps the seal of approval on them, and that causes me great anxiety

5.0 p.m.

The problem goes right through education. Perhaps we should not refer to the new clauses that have been selected or rejected, but the older disabled child who, because of a lack of mobility, cannot attend university because there are no facilities has to take a second-rate grant. We treat our disabled as second-class citizens right down the line. If they have the intellectual capacity to go to university and are accepted, they get the mandatory grant, but if that university cannot accept them because of access problems, they have to rely upon a local authority deciding to give them perhaps £120 a year. That is the double handicap that they face all the time. The Ministry has the power to insist that any disabled youngster from the age of 5 to 21 be able to compete on equal terms.

I am not a sentimentalist. People sometimes ask me "What are you doing in this sphere?" If at the end of the day the all-party group succeeds in turning disabled people into income tax payers, it will have done its job. It starts with education. If the Ministry has the power but pussyfoots around, the Government must not be surprised if some hon. Members on the Back Benches become a bit stroppy now and then.

The Minister has assured us that the power exists. My hon. Friend the member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and, if I may call him so, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) of the all-party group and I are saying that we should withdraw the new clause if the Government will reveal the extent to which they are prepared to bare their teeth to those institutions that will not make the necessary provisions.

I admit that the clause goes too far, but I shall push it unless the Ministry accepts its responsibility. People such as Mr. Milligan, who works with the blind, and Peter Large, who is connected with the disabled, are saying "On the basis of our experience, every child must be given the chance of full-time education in an integrated community. They do not want segregation and they do not

want to be treated differently. If the powers exist, the Ministry must enforce them". Before we decide whether to vote on the new clause, I want to see whether the Minister can give us some hope.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I apologise for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of the speech by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). I shall not oppose the new clause, because I feel too much out of date on the subject, but I confess to a feeling of astonishment.
In the 1950s I started the first all-party group in the House for disabled children. Mr. Hilary Marquand was chairman and had been a Minister of Health in the Labour Government. With an active team from both sides of the House, we worked for several years for precisely the opposite of the aims of the new clause. We pressed Departments for money and special schools. After about three years of good work, Hilary Marquand told me that we could disband the committee because we had the special schools for which we had been working. That is now out of date and I suppose that we were then doing a bad thing, but I have my doubts.
Obviously, if a child's handicap is not great, it is best that he should be in the same school as ordinary children, but there comes a point when it is better for the child to go to a special school. I understand the strength of feeling expressed by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), who said that handicapped children did not want to be treated differently. But deaf and blind children must be treated differently. One cannot teach them in the same class as sighted and hearing children because it is not practical. I have never been a schoolmaster or a teacher in a special school, but I understand that there are special skills, methods and techniques that are advantageous to children who lack sight or hearing.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I accept what the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) has said and I appreciate his depth of feeling, but there have been changes since he was involved in the interests of handicapped children. The technology of communication has moved a long way and it can be used in the


classroom. Teachers of the blind want to specialise but to be integrated into ordinary schools.

Mr. Bell: I accept that I must be somewhat out of date, since there has been such a remarkable shift of opinion. In the 1950s virtually everybody said that the duty of the State and local authorities was to make special provision with specially trained teachers to give handicapped children the education that they could not receive in an ordinary school. My interest began as a result of pressure from constituents whose children were falling out of the bottom of ordinary schools. Parents were troubled and said that their children needed special schooling but could not obtain it.
One must bear in mind the psychology of the child. Some will accept a special position in an ordinary school, but others will react differently. I throw this out only in a tentative way, but one must also consider that if one takes into an ordinary school all those on whom the scale just tips on the balance, one will be left with only the low grade children in special schools. In that way the cross-fertilisation between the higher grade and lower grade handicapped children will be lost. Those are difficult matters to evaluate and balance. Surely the right solution is to allow local authorities discretion to be exercised in the light of parental preference.
I do not want to put on strong pressure. The hon. Member for Eccles said he wanted to do that. He talked about kicking the local authorities. I do not feel so sure about the matter, having been on one tack and then having listened with understanding and sympathy to the opposite point of view.
I do not oppose the new clause because of the 15-year lapse in my involvement with the subject. I shall not be dogmatic. There must be a balance of argument. Discretion by the local authorities should be quite wide and there is probably room for different prescriptions and emphases to be tried out. If this is a new theory which various interested people have advanced in the light of their personal experience, I should like to see how it works in practice in local authority schools before putting a half-

nelson on local education authorities to adopt these new proposals.
The hon. Member for Eccles said that he thought the new clause went too far. I imagine that is probably the case, but we are having a useful and interesting debate on the priniciple and the wording is not so important. I suggest that we should advance in this direction, but let us do so cautiously, keeping an open mind lest we should push the principle too far towards its logical conclusion.

Mr. Mike Noble: I rise with some diffidence in view of the contribution made to the cause of the disabled by the majority of those who have spoken in the debate. I am aware of the courage and leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), and his work for the disabled is recognised throughout the country. Last year my hon. Friend came to my constituency and disabled people travelled miles to meet him and to receive inspiration from being able to talk to him. I also recognise the work done in this respect by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones). I have a great deal of sympathy with the motives and aspirations behind the new clause, which my hon. Friends support.
My experience of education for disabled children in ordinary and special schools is limited to the period when I frequently visited schools as chairman of an education committee, and to the period when my mother worked in a school for the disabled in Hull. That was a fine modern school—perhaps one of the best in the country.
The needs of the disabled child are apparent and they are not very dissimilar from those of the normal child. Like all children, disabled children need a great deal of care and attention. I noted on my visits to the schools the attention, devotion and love of the staff for the disabled children, and the tremendous care they took in looking after their needs, both physical and educational. Like all children, disabled children need to lead as normal a life as possible, but we must recognise that additional resources are needed to enable them to do that. I welcome any attempt to move resources in that direction. For these reasons I have great sympathy with the new clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said that the essential feature of disability was loneliness, and that is an experience that only those who are disabled can understand. The child who stands on the touchline at the football match must be lonely because he is watching his peers carrying out an activity which he is unable to carry out. My hon. Friend must frequently feel the same kind of loneliness, and it is that loneliness that we on both sides of the House and all members of the community must seek to overcome. Is the clause the best way to do that? I accept the motives and wishes of the supporters of the clause, but is it the best vehicle?

5.15 p.m.

The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) moved in this direction, but he perhaps erred on the side of caution. I want to see a little more speed. The real argument is not simply whether we can allocate resources: it is how we can best use the resources we allocate. That is one of the key questions.

The clause provides that a local authority—
shall not provide such treatment in a special school without the consent of the parent".

That makes it mandatory for the children to be moved into the State system. In my constituency there is a school which is several storeys high. How can a disabled child who is sent to that school, in which the laboratories are on the top floor, become integrated into the system and take advantage of the facilities provided? When I was chairman of the education committee, the authority had several vehicles specially equipped with lifts, and the vehicles had to run for several hours to bring disabled children to one central point to receive education in a special school. I doubt whether it would be possible to place those children in ordinary schools, given the resources of the local authority.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has said on many occasions that when he allocates money to local authorities for educational purposes through the rate support grant, he has virtually no control over whether the money is spent on education and in which sector of education it is spent. On those grounds, I have grave

doubts whether the clause is the best way to deal with this problem.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I said that perhaps the clause went too far. I also said that there was the problem of access. Substantial numbers of disabled young people between 18 and 20 cannot go to university because there are no access facilities. They therefore have to go to a polytechnic. They receive a different rate of grant and they are thereby doubly impoverished.

Mr. Noble: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That applies particularly when a new building is being put up. Architects put stairs in a building when there is no need for them. That is disgraceful. Discrimination in the giving of grants is also disgraceful.
I come back to the essential feature of disablement, which is loneliness. I want to think of the disabled child, following the passage of the Bill, whose parents wish him to be educated in a certain comprehensive school. There is nothing to say that the parent shall not choose the school. In circumstances in which there is neither the special provision required for the disabled child nor provision for him to enjoy the educational facilities of the school because language laboratories and so on cannot be reached, that disabled child will suffer an entirely different kind of loneliness and a more formidable loneliness than he would if he were in a special school.
I understand that the Warnock Committee is looking into resources. We hope that the Warnock Committee will report very soon and that the Government will give the support to the needs of disabled children that they have given to adults through the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). The provisions of that measure have spread through local authority work.
We want a commitment from the Government that the Warnock Committee will be encouraged to produce its findings as quickly as possible, and that the Government will then enter into discussions with local authorities to ensure that they are pursued. If necessary, we hope that the Government will introduce


legislation to ensure that they are pursued.
There is a great deal of sympathy with what lies behind the new clause, but laudable though the motives are, it is not the best vehicle for pursuing the essential needs of disabled children.

Mr. Clement Freud: The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that the education of those suffering from some disability or handicap takes place as far as possible in a normal school environment. The essence of equality of opportunity is to treat people equally unless there are obvious rational and positive grounds for discriminating against them. That is the principle that should apply to educational provision.
Since the 1921 and 1944 Acts there have been too great a tendency to think that because a child has a disability or handicap, he should be set apart from his fellows and that his education should automatically be segregated from that of his peers. I believe that the new clause is in line with the spirit of the recommendations of the Warnock Committee in so far as the emphasis should be on providing for special needs—while making any necessary discrimination—in ordinary schools.
It is wrong to separate disabled and handicapped children and their parents by bundling the children away deep in the countryside in remote Victorian special schools. Obviously those suffering from severe disabilities, mental disorders or deafness must be exceptions, but in other instances the gain in education specialism must be measured against the loss of social balance and the integration that is necessary.
Special schools often require a strong social programme to enable the child to adjust to the community from which he has been segregated for the duration of his education. We need to provide more generously. It is to be demanded of local education authorities that if the new clause is accepted they will make the necessary specialist provision. At the same time they must receive adequate resources from central Government to make that provision.
We should also recognise the social gain that integration will provide. It is

a prime factor, but one that has been neglected. It has been pretty reliably said that approximately 80 per cent. of physically handicapped pupils could be educated in ordinary schools. Of course, that would entail some fairly major physical alterations to buildings. However, we must throw into the balance the educational gain that would arise from such a move.
There is strong evidence to suggest that the physically handicapped do not attain their full potential because the unnecessary segregation that takes place creates its own cycle of deprivation. The physically handicapped may become needlessly educationally handicapped. It is in this area that the new clause will help. About 50 per cent. of the mildly educationally subnormal population could be accommodated in ordinary schools. The delicate child given adequate medical support, could enjoy the fruits of a full and integrated environment. It cannot help the maladjusted child to adjust to his family's surroundings if he is closeted away. Therefore, Liberals support the new clause as a refreshing and welcome change in emphasis.
We have a few slight reservations. Although many children with disabilities will be able to be educated in ordinary schools in the main stream of life, resources will have to be devoted to cater for their special needs. We believe that special units should be adjacent to or attached to ordinary schools to allow for some degree of integration. It must be steadily remembered that if integration is at all possible, it should be attempted.
We must recognise that in some cases the physically handicapped child cannot pursue the same physical programme as his peers. That is not to say that some participation in that programme would not have great value. I take issue with the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) who talked about the loneliness of a kid standing on the touchline watching his peers play football. There could be some loneliness, but not if other kids are around to make the disabled child feel that support is almost as important as participation.
That, of course, is something of a lie, but a beneficial lie. In the USA the most unlikely people become part and parcel of American football teams. If a girl


has big busts or can do the splits, she becomes an integral member of an American football team.
Integration achieves a dual purpose: there is the benefit that handicapped kids derive from being in proximity with normal children, and there are also many children whose natural violence is curbed by the compassion conjured up by having handicapped children near them.

Sir George Sinclair: I wish to support the hon. Gentleman's concept. There can be great value in the relationships between the physically handicapped and the able-bodied. There is evidence of the two-way benefits of able-bodied young people sharing activities with the physically handicapped young people. I must declare an interest as I am a foundation trustee of PHAB, the movement for the Physically Handicapped and Able-Bodied. The work of that movement underlines exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying about developing richer relations by association.

Mr. Freud: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We do not often see eye to eye in this harmonious fashion.
It is exceedingly important to remember that there is benefit to both the well children and the handicapped. There is an awful danger that if handicapped children are segregated their ambition will be virtually nil. It is seeing well children behaving as they do that gives the handicapped child not jealousy but a tremendous incentive to emulate those kids to the best of his ability.
In my local authority great care is taken before a child is sent to a special school. But there are local education authorities which take the easy option. They find, if a child is not that simple to teach in an ordinary school and there are school places in special establishments, that it is easier to say "let the child go".
I understand what is likely to happen at the end of this debate. The Government will say, as they are so used to saying, that all this proposed legislation is totally unnecessary, that they already have power to do everything that the new clause seeks to do. If they have those powers, of what are they afraid? I accept that the Under-Secretary of State, who has been a model of consistency and

honourability, may well believe every word she says.

5.30 p.m.

I am reminded of the occasion when Mr. Barnum was informed of the death of the man who was shot out of a cannon in his circus. He said "This is grave news. It will be difficult to find a man of the same calibre." I do not think that it will benefit us at all when in this context the Minister says in reply to a subsequent debate "Ah, but that promise was made by another person at another time." Sadly, I feel that if a Government spokesman says "We already possess legislation to achieve this end" his successors in another Government will not be bound to take the same view.

That is why I believe that the clause should become part of the Bill—a Bill of which none of us is particularly proud because it is much more a Bill for compulsion than for education. However, if the House agrees to the new clause, there will at least be one little part of the Bill of which we can be justly proud.

Mr. Martin Flannery: I agree with many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), but I believe that our capacity to implement these proposals at present does not exist.
As a teacher for most of my adult life, I first came into contact with the problems of special school children and handicapped children not only on the "shop floor", as it were, but because many children were sent from ordinary schools to special schools. As a member of the National Executive of the NUT, I became a member of the Special Schools Advisory Committee. When I went on that committee, I realised how little knowledge I had of the problems of the handicapped. I met teachers from hospital schools who faced enormous problems—problems of which up to that stage I knew nothing and about which I had to learn.
I was chairman of the Primary School Advisory Committee and understood the generality of problems, but when I became a member of the Special Schools Advisory Committee I came face to face with the problems of the multiple-handicapped. I spoke to teachers who worked with those children and, like my


hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), they were utterly dedicated to their pupils and constantly discussed better ways of carrying out their tasks. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South is an internationally-known figure in this sphere, and he and many other hon. Members are experts in this area of activity.
The point repeatedly made in this context is that handicapped children should not be segregated from other children—in other words they should not be made to feel apart from others. This view has now been accepted throughout the teaching world. The only dispute that takes place among teachers relates to the methods of bringing handicapped children into the work of ordinary children. Teachers in the special schools believe that handicapped children should be among other children, and yet difficulties are discovered because of the nature of the handicap of many of the children.
We must not make light of the grave difficulties that we shall face if we implement this new clause. There are many special schools in the city of Sheffield. There is a great expert in the teaching of the blind called Mr. Frederick Tooze. He constantly visits Africa and advises the authorities there on how to deal with their problems in a country where there is a great deal more blindness than exists in this country. Mr. Tooze is the distinguished head teacher of a local school for the blind and he took the initiative of mixing his blind children with children in the nearby comprehensive school.
Naturally, there is now an attempt to organise work of this kind on a central basis. It will involve the installation of equipment such as lifts in schools. Furthermore, I recently spoke to one of the leaders of the blind teachers, Mr. Milligan, and I found myself in almost total agreement with his views.
This debate has given a welcome airing to this important subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) asked the Minister about the Warnock Committee. I hope that action on the recommendations of that Committee is taken more quickly than action that was taken over the findings of the Bullock Committee on the subject of reading.
Although I find myself in total agreement with the sentiments behind the clause, I regret that I shall have to vote against it. I do so because I believe that we lack the ability to carry out the implications that lie behind these proposals. My hon. Friends can rest assured that I am with them in their sentiments, but I am agraid that I cannot support proposals of this kind at the present time.

Mr. George Gardiner: I contribute to this debate with some trepidation, as I have to follow four speakers whose experience in serving those who suffer from disability I acknowledge. We always listen with great respect to any words from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on the subject. Certainly, I understand the point he made initially in his remarks, when he anticipated that he might feel some irritation of hearing new voices raised on this issue which had not contributed previously. It is a natural feeling. Nevertheless I urge him to accept that for all of us there is a first time in these matters. As a Member of Parliament, particularly a new one, one undergoes a variety of changing experiences, and not infrequently one changes one's mind about things.
I confess readily that a year ago I would have accepted the conventions of the general need to educate children suffering from disability in separate establishments. The fact that I no longer hold that view is directly attributable to my experience as a Member of Parliament. I have been invited to meet societies and bodies which serve those who are disabled, and in my constituency particularly bodies catering for those who suffer from mental disabilities.
I think that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South and the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) were right to stress that the benefits resulting from bringing handicapped and non-handicapped children together are not confined to one group but are shared between them. It is important to emphasise that benefit does not go exclusively to the handicapped. I speak with limited experience here. Whenever as a Member of Parliament I am invited to visit functions arranged for disabled children, I make a habit of taking my


own children to it, and as a result they are, I hope, better educated in these matters, or are becoming so, than they otherwise would be.
At the moment we must recognise the great difficulties involved in bringing handicapped and non-handicapped children together in education. In some cases the disability suffered is far too severe to permit that. In others there is a need for such special services that they can be supplied only in limited locations. Sometimes there are problems arising from extreme immobility of disabled children. There are great difficulties, and I recognise that we cannot go overboard about the arguments expressed so clearly by speakers earlier in this debate.
A report by Her Majesty's inspectors in 1974 said that if integration were to have any real meaning, there must be a sufficient proportion of activities of a school in which the handicapped child could participate on equal terms, could feel a sense of achievement, and earn the respect of other children. These are pretty stern conditions, but unless there is a reasonable chance of their being met and frequently there is, we must recognise that in some cases integration can do more harm than good.
We are trying to find the right balance between the two difficulties and the two needs. The motive behind the new clause is to win recognition that the balance is shifting and that this should be reflected in our educational provisions.
The balance is shifting because the frontiers of what can be achieved are shifting all the time. This is the result of patient research and advances in technology. For example, in Croydon partially deaf children, for whom hitherto it was assumed that special schools would be essential, are sent to selected secondary schools which have special units attached to them. In these schools partially deaf pupils can join in many ordinary lessons by virtue of the fact that the teacher wears a small microphone of sorts around his or her neck and is able to transmit what is being said to the partially deaf pupil. This is an example of how the frontier is shifting to allow greater integration of disabled pupils in normal schools than we would have considered possible a few years ago.
It is not always possible of course, and the difficulties are particularly great when we come to the category of mentally handicapped children. If it is not possible to integrate them properly in the educational processes, perhaps we could create within our schools arrangements and provisions for greater contact between handicapped and non-handicapped children.

5.45 p.m.

It has been said that what we have to do nowadays is not to give total concentration or attention to what this kind of pupil cannot do but to put rather more emphasis on what he or she can do in the company of schoolfellows. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) just referred to the great difficulty of the resources involved here, and we all know that it is not possible at the moment, or even in the foreseeable future, to do all that we want to do for this kind of pupil. Nevertheless, I interpret the motive behind the clause as pushing the Minister—if she needs pushing—into giving rather more impetus to this movement for greater and keener recognition of the part all local authorities can play in changing the balance and moving the frontiers towards a greater degree of integration.

If there is a vote on this new clause, I shall support it, although, like the hon. Member for Hillsborough, I recognise in doing so that there are severe limits on what actually can be done to meet the requirements. But I must express the hope that the Minister will offer us the assurance we want so that it may be possible not to press the clause to a vote anyway.

Mrs. Lynda Chalker: I must apologise for not having been here to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in moving this new clause. I think that all the contributions made today have pointed towards the great advancement of the last 10 years in enabling children with some handicap to involve themselves more closely in the whole of society than was hitherto thought possible, or even desirable.
Obviously there is grave concern among those parents whose children are severely handicapped and not yet in special schools. About 11,500 of these


children are on waiting lists for special schools. But there are some children in special schools who could move into more general education.
The difficulty that we make for ourselves in legislation and in its interpretation by local authorities is that we are inflexible to the changes and developing abilities of disabled children. I have had a little experience of these matters and I know that very often the things that five years ago were said of a small child to be impossible are now highly likely, given the right impetus and encouragement.
Riding for the disabled is not strictly an educational pursuit. Those who said that physically disabled children should be taught to ride horses were seen as crackpots at the beginning, but I am glad that we persevered, because the joy that that recreational and, in a sense, educational experience brings to disabled children has to be seen to be believed. It is not just a question of riding or even of sport, but of the gradual building up of this ability, usually best learned in the company of able-bodied children, to do a task which was hitherto regarded as impossible.
When the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and I visited one of the rehabilitation centres in Germany, we were delighted to see the use of tactical reading apparatus which allows blind people to read computer print-outs. This sort of technological aid, though not yet widespread, is bringing a new facility to people who hitherto could not communicate because of the lack of one of the senses. This is more true in education now than ever before. When the able-bodied child sits alongside the handicapped child, both gain immeasurably from the experience.
This experience of normal relationships in education does as much for able-bodied children as it does for the handicapped. I have seen a handicapped child who had developed a sense of expression in mathematics and algebra teaching an able-bodied child who could not grasp the Xs and Ys and simultaneous equations. One learns from this sort of experience how helpful and welcome education integration can be.

Mr. Carter-Jones: The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) said that he thought that special schools were required, and he could not understand why, with the passage of time, the tendency had been for them not to be needed. He made a valuable point. However, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) and I have seen organisations throughout the world in which the handicapped child can produce work, do sums, type and print faster than the able-bodied child. That shows why these children can be integrated, and one can see how technology fills the gap.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Member for Eccles and I were equally amazed when we saw thalidomide children totally bereft of arms riding bicycles at a fast and dangerous rate of knots, by our adult standards, in a school in Germany. But those children would probably have been safer on the open road than non-handicapped children because of what they had learned about balance. The hon. Member is correct in what he says about the advancement of technology in the last few years.
But there is an even more important reason why we should support the clause. For years we keep children in special schools. When they reach the age of 16 they are unable to find special adult training centres to take them. They have been in special schools and have therefore not learned integration, and for that reason they cannot go into one of the ordinary technical colleges or colleges of further education. If they surmount the problem of gaining access to the building, they are still faced with the problem of adjusting to the different pace in the new surroundings—it may not be faster, but it will be different from that in the special schools.
I therefore see handicapped children as requiring much more individual attention with concentration on their individual aptitudes. There will always be a minority of severely handicapped children for whom special education is necessary. But there are a growing number who will gain a great deal from and give a great deal to their fellow able-bodied and able-minded pupils when they learn alongside them.
We know from the community service volunteers who have worked in special schools how much they have learned about teaching from seeing these children adapt to working in a one-to-one relationship either with an able-bodied child or with a teacher. It is to give them the chance of a normal relationship and to stop this segregation which, unless we try to integrate them now, will be with them in some form for the rest of their lives, that we put the new clause forward.
We must learn from the experience of other countries which have tried integrated education and found it beneficial for both handicapped and non-handicapped children. It has certainly proved beneficial for the social development of those children.
I have one reservation about the clause. It concerns subsection (2) which deals with the situation where a parent is unable to be found, is unable to give consent, or withholds consent unreasonably for the child to go to a special educational centre. I believe that an appeal procedure must be built into this provision. Whether the other appeal procedures would cover this matter I cannot say, but the question who will have the final decision remains unanswered.
I hope, however, that the clause will become a part of what to me is otherwise an unacceptable Bill.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: The whole House is indebted to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) for moving the new clause. It would appear from the debate that it commands fairly widespread support on both sides of the House. It would, however, be unfortunate if in our enthusiasm for its intentions we ignored some of the difficulties in the drafting. Take subsection (2), which states:
If a local education authority decides that a child requires special educational treatment, they shall not provide such treatment in a special school without the consent of the parent unless the parent cannot be found or is incapable of giving consent or is withholding his consent unreasonably.
That sounds splendid, but we should bear in mind that the shock of having a handicapped child can stay with the parents thoroughout the child's school career.
Parents may be anxious to send a child to a special school, but not because they wish to push it away from them—although it would be foolish of us to get on our high horses and say that such action would be deplorable. We must recognise that there are great problems in dealing with handicapped children in the home. Every effort should be made by education authorities to provide integrated education, but there are problems in the construction of subsection (2). I hope we shall not be told that the Government already have the necessary powers. If they have, that is a condemnation of them and all previous Governments.
There was only one Press release issued by the Department on this subject between the first half of 1975 and the first half of 1976. It was called "Discovering children who need special education. A better deal for handicapped children and their parents." I am aware that the Department has an extremely wide brief, but that Press release was one fewer than the two devoted to the appointment and subsequent resignation of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) as PPS to the Minister.
Other Press releases have included those on an export licence suspended for an English Great Helm, the Secretary of State's visit to European science research centres, the first report of the APO conference, the use of ionising radiators in educational establishments, the report of a working party on the experimental manipulation of the genetic composition of micro-organisms and reports on the importance of links between industry and education and on school leavers entering dead-end jobs. I am not saying that the fact that only one Press release was issued on the subject of disabled children in that 12-month period means that the Department does not take the problem seriously enough, but one might almost be drawn to that conclusion.
We must do more than simply try to provide these children with parity. I hope that we shall follow the prayer:
No less precious is the child who speaks in a halting voice, who walks with a slower tread, whose hand must always rest in yours, whose eyes your eyes must be. No less precious is the child who will always look to you for sustenance.
When these children look to this House for sustenance, I hope they will not look in vain.

Sir George Young: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie), whose personal commitment in the education of the disabled and handicapped is well known.
I support the new clause. In the last two decades, there has been a change in society's approach to the disabled away from isolation towards integration. We have seen this in housing, where most new developments include provisions for the disabled; in health, where the trend is away from hospitalisation towards treatment in the community, as out-patients or within the family with support from community workers; and in social security, with the introduction of the non-contributory invalidity pension and the invalid care allowance. All these are attempts to integrate the disabled within the community. The new clause seeks to extend this welcome principle to the education of children who, in the past, have been excluded from some other provisions, particularly the mobility allowance.
From my experience, I find that provision for disabled children is fairly patchy. When I was the manager of an infants' school in London, there was good provision because the headmaster had a disabled child and there was a quota for disabled children in the school. We should try to standardise good practice.
There is concern among the immigrant community that their children are shunted off to special schools for no good reason. The new clause would reassure them that every possible step was taken before their children were sent to these schools.
I welcome the new clause because it is much easier for disabled persons if they have been at school with able-bodied children and it is right that able-bodied children should help and understand the problems of disabled children at school. However, I should inject a note of caution. Some children will always have to go to special schools, and there are some disabilities which it is important to identify early and for the children affected to go to special schools. Autistic children, for instance, would come into this category.
Even if the new clause is passed, no one will wish teachers not to try to

identify the children who need special schools. We do not want them to think that everyone is trying to get all disabled children into ordinary schools. The argument on resources is not quite as clear-cut. If more provision is made within ordinary schools for disabled children, there will be more places available in special schools.
There is no conflict between what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) was doing in the 1950s and what we are doing now. The children for whom he was fighting would never have gone to ordinary schools. They are not the subject of the new clause. We are talking about children who could go to ordinary schools, thus releasing places in the special schools for the severely disabled. We are taking a step in the right direction in our approach to the problems of the disabled. There is a change in the balance, in co-ordination with the changes we are seeing in health, housing and social security.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I shall refer only to New Clause 17 and I shall be brief, because I have not brought the prospectuses of the Crown School, the Needwood School for the Partially Deaf or the Loxley Hall School for the Disabled in my constituency, all of which do splendid work for disabled children.
I confess that I am not filled with enthusiasm for the new clause. That is not to say that I do not have the utmost regard for the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who tabled it, or for his hon. Friends who do so much for disabled people, particularly disabled children. Nor does it mean that I have anything but the highest regard for my hon. Friends who give the lie constantly and strongly to any who say that the Conservative Party has no caring face.
Equally, I do not dissent from the general proposition that it is better to integrate disabled children among able-bodied children than to separate them and cause the sort of hardship and distress to which my hon. Friends have referred.
I am concerned that the new clause seeks to change the emphasis from the automatic sending of disabled children to special schools unless it is impracticable to do so to the automatic sending


of these children to ordinary schools unless it is impracticable to do so. The common denominator is what is practicable. That denominator will not change simply because we change the emphasis in practice. Those who are responsible for allocating to schools will still have to ask themselves the same question "Is this child sufficiently disabled to warrant being sent to a disabled school, or is this child one who will benefit more from being sent to a school which will direct its attention to the specific disability?"
I cannot see that by changing the emphasis we shall in any way change the practical decision which is made by the social services departments in any county. I know that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South shares the county of Staffordshire, which has a high proportion of disabled. It is a fact that the East Staffordshire district, which I represent in the constituency of Burton, has a higher proportion of disabled than even the rest of Staffordshire, and it is a matter which has caused me great concern in the time that I have been privileged to be a Member of Parliament. It is a problem which as I see it will not, in its practicalities, be seriously changed or improved as it faces those who allocate these schools.
I do not speak against the clause but merely say that I am unenthusiastic about it. I should like the Minister, if she accepts the clause, to be aware of the particular danger which might result from it. She may say "The emphasis now being changed, I must direct a greater proportion of the resources to ordinary schools, so that they will be able to satisfy the demand which is currently being satisfied by special schools." But, the resources being limited, as they undoubtedly are, there may be some resources which now go to the special schools which would no longer go to them.
It is not just a matter—I listened very carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) said—of the simple reallocation of resources. The schools do different jobs, and it may be very difficult for any county council to be able to ask a Minister, in pursuing the object of the clause, to say "Let us keep things as they are. Of the £100,000 we are now able to spend on schools for disabled children in this country, let us maintain the level of payment to the special schools and do noth-

ing to increase the money which goes to the ordinary schools for the provision of disabled children."
I would be very concerned if the effect of implementing the clause were to be to to take away any of the resources which are now being made available, or which ought to be made available in the future, to special schools.
What I am saying, in short, is that what matters is not where the emphasis is placed. It is where the resources are directed that will matter in practice. Therefore, I ask the Minister to give a general undertaking—of course, it cannot be too specific—that if she adopts the clause, as seems to be the feeling of the House, she will not take away resources which are currently being allocated or ought to be allocated in the future to particular special schools and, as it were, redirect them to ordinary schools. If that is done, the end may not be to the benefit of those who are perhaps more seriously disabled and who should have a special claim upon special schools.
If the Minister can give that sort of undertaking, I for one would welcome it and would perhaps feel a little more enthusiastic about the clause.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. John Moore: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), I very warmly endorse the clause. I accept the very sound reservations of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young).
I say to the Minister that I have, fortunately, within the London borough of Croydon, and specifically within my own constituency, quite close experience of the sort of situation mentioned by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) concerning the problems of integrating specially handicapped deaf children into a local authority school.
Within my constituency, the Kingsley Deaf Unit is fully integrated into Kingsley Primary School, a local education authority school. It does an incredibly good job and carries out in practice today many of the things that my hon. Friends and hon. Members on the Government side were talking about. I not only warmly endorse the clause but also strongly suggest that this is a very specific area which could be examined to see how well it works in practice.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): I first apologise to the House because inevitably I shall be rehearsing many of the arguments that hon. Members have already covered in their speeches.
Perhaps the most notable feature of the debate has been that every speaker has expressed complete sympathy with the intention behind the new clause. I am certainly no exception. But I am first concerned—I apologise to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) and other hon. Members who dealt with the point—as to whether we need the clause. Secondly, I am even more concerned about the effect of the clause as drafted, as opposed to the effect which was intended by hon. Members who tabled it.
If we turn for the moment to the Bill itself, as opposed to the existing Education Acts, there is nothing whatever in the Bill as drafted which prevents the integration of children with disabilities into ordinary schools. The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) and other hon. Members regarded the reference in the Bill to special schools as enshrining the system of special schools into our law and regarded this as a step backwards. That is innacurate. The fact is that, if we had not had such a reference to special schools in the Bill, the Bill would have ruled them out of existence. The reference in the Bill does not enshrine them in our system but permits their continued life.
No one in this debate has said that all special schools should be abolished. Indeed, almost everyone has indicated a need for the continuation of some special schools. That part of the Bill, therefore, is not in any sense a step backwards but is a recognition of existing reality and of something which hon. Members have recognised as valuable.
As I see it, the sponsors of the clause feel that the emphasis on education for the disabled is at present weighted far too heavily towards education in special schools and that we should in this country, as in many others, be pursuing much more determinedly every possibility of integrating children into ordinary schools.
On the first general point, I am most sympathetic to that basic approach, and, indeed, so is my Department. Clearly, however, given that we have at present a system—as many hon. Members have pointed out—which is dependent on

special schools, this is not a situation which we can simply reverse overnight.
We are meeting groups of the disabled—people such as Peter Large and Martin Milligan. We are examining the possibility of setting up some pilot schemes of integration. We are investigating which local authorities may be willing to undertake the sort of pilot schemes of integration which I am sure many hon. Members who have spoken in the debate would wish to see. However, if these pilot schemes, small-scale though they might be, are to succeed—I am sure many hon. Members will feel that it is inadequate to say at this stage in the whole debate, and not just this debate, that we are looking towards pilot schemes—the most essential prerequisite is full and proper consultation with local authorities and, perhaps even more so, with the teachers who will be involved.
I say in all sincerity to all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate that I fear that it would put at risk the acceptance of the whole principle of integration if we tried to rush into this matter in the way suggested in the new clause. I recognise that many hon. Members have fought for these reforms for many years and that it is perhaps almost offensive to them to talk about rushing into changes of this kind. However, I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and other hon. Members that long though they have been complaining, like the rest of us, they are acquainted with the nature and duration of most political campaigns. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South must be well aware that he has not for as many years as he has been complaining had the support of the majority of educational opinion.
It is a measure of the success of the campaign for which many hon. Members have fought that more and more people are coming to accept that integration is valuable and offers possibilities. But one cannot possibly say that because we have been advocating this for so many years we must now push forward in great haste; having convinced people and prepared the ground, obviously a practical start must at some stage be made.
Secondly, not everyone who has spoken in the debate has appreciated just how far the precise wording of the clause—again, I differentiate between the wording


and the intention—shift the emphasis in education. As I have already said—I apologise to hon. Members who did not wish to hear me say it—it is a fact that integration is already possible under existing education law and under the Bill. However, the effect of the new clause, whatever its intention, is that disabled pupils should clearly be educated in an ordinary school, unless that school is specifically designated as unsuitable by the Secretary of State.
This is almost a reversal of the existing situation. The hon. Member for Exeter recognised it as such when he called for such a reversal. Here it is that the misunderstanding arises. The hon. Gentleman calls for a reversal of the existing situation but then says, almost in the next breath, that what we need is step-by-step integration of children in schools by special selection and so on.
The defect which arises in the new clause, as opposed to the policy, is that it is not a step-by-step new clause but an overnight, immediate new clause which would bring in an overnight reversal of policy of a kind for which we have neither the resources nor, I fear, the good will on the part of many authorities to implement. This is the danger in the new clause. I fear that we would be very unwise to attempt to bring about this kind of reversal by such an abrupt change in the law.
The basis point is that it is not a change in the law that hon. Members need but a change in existing policy, and it is not only a change in existing and past policy in the Department of Education and Science for which they are asking but a change in the policy of local authorities and head teachers and in the policy and approach of schools. I must say to hon. Members, in a pure spirit of generosity, that I do not think they will bring about this change overnight if they succeed, as I hope they will not seek to to do, in carrying the new clause.

Mr. Ashley: I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying, as I am sure the House does, but in order to further a change in the policy of local education authorities will she be good enough to consider issuing a circular advising local authorities about this policy of integration?

Miss Jackson: What we are seeking to do at present is to discover what local

authorities are willing to do. We have consulted some of the organisations with which my hon. Friend is acquainted, which have suggested to us local authorities which they have found to be sympathetic and which they think would be willing to follow schemes of the kind we suggest. That is the line on which we are working. However, if it is thought that it would be helpful if we considered having a general discussion with local authorities, I shall certainly consider that point.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Has anything been done to find out the attitude of parents? I am a little surprised that it should be suggested that there is this pressure for the change. When I was especially interested in this subject, which was admittedly nearly 20 years ago, the pressure from parents was for special schools and not for integration.

Miss Jackson: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has highlighted the sort of comments that I have been making. There is a great need to consult every group that is affected by this sort of proposal—the parents, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, and, indeed, in many cases the children themselves. It may be that there will be some people who would prefer their children to go to a special school, but I do not see anything in the existing legislation, or, indeed, even in the new clause, which would suggest that integration would be compulsory—although I suppose that if the new clause were carried it might have something of that effect. However, I cannot imagine that it would be enforced over the wishes of parents. The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right. Parents, too, have important views and there is a need for consultation here.
I have not referred so far to the Warnock Committee, which, as many hon. Members have said, is at present examining education for the disabled. I am not merely resting the case for withdrawal of the new clause—as I hope—on the ground that we should await the report of the Warnock Committee. I wish to demonstrate that there are other more serious and sound grounds on which hon. Members should not seek to press the new clause. As the Committee exists, however, and is considering exactly the matters we are discussing, it might be a little unwise


actually to change the law in advance of its report, which I hope will be with us fairly soon, towards the end of the year.

Mr. Carter-Jones: This is a rather important matter. We appreciate that there is no need for a change in the law and we know full well that my hon. Friend's Department does not spend money on aids for disabled children. There is a great problem to be faced. I can name 10 children who are severely handicapped and who need advanced electronic equipment to enable them to be educated and to take their place in our society and become independent.
Is my hon. Friend aware that there are no real resources from which this equipment can be purchased? Does she realise that this equipment could be written off in about four years in their lives and that they could use it in perpetuity? Will she look at the whole provision of special equipment for the severely handicapped child and resources from which the money shall be provided? Will she give an assurance that her Department will change its mind about not spending money to enable children to be independent where local authorities cannot afford such equipment?

Miss Jackson: I wish that my hon. Friend had raised that point with me previously, because it is not a point to which I had come prepared to reply. It is a major preoccupation in my Department at present that there are not resources for most of the things we wish to do, including spending money on special equipment for the disabled. This is not a field in which I have direct experience at present. If my hon. Friend will write to me, I shall inquire and ascertain the facts. If he will forgive my saying so, although it is a very valid and interesting point and certainly of great concern, it does not arise directly on the new clause.
The second part of the new clause would strengthen the rights of parents to withhold consent for their child to be sent to a special school. Parents already have a right of appeal to my right hon. Friend. It has been our experience that this is very rarely exercised because local authorities are increasingly—I think in almost every case—reluctant to send a child to a special school without the

active co-operation of its parents. It would be most unwise to do so. One cannot, however, differentiate the second part of the new clause from the first part, as being a part which is already being put into practice widely.
In any case, we are rather unhappy about the wording of the second part of the new clause because it gives considerable scope for legal argument about how soon one can give up looking for a parent who, in terms of the new clause, cannot be found, or in determining what is meant by "incapable of giving consent." The second part of the clause is rather loosely drafted and would cause quite considerable difficulty.

6.30 p.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) asked me for concrete evidence to show what we in the Department proposed to do in future to further the cause of integration. I have told him that we are looking forward to some pilot schemes of this kind. I agree entirely with the point made by him and by many other hon. Members in the debate that it is now for us in the Department and, indeed, for those in the local authorities to look for agreement and co-operation from everyone who would need to be involved in schemes of integration.

I must suggest to my hon. Friend, however, and to other hon. Members who raised this point that, given the lack of progress in this direction, about which many hon. Members have complained, it is inevitable that we must make a start somewhere. I would suggest to hon. Members who have contributed to the debate that this is such a delicate and sensitive area that it is absolutely vital that when we attempt experiments of this kind they must be successful. They must be firmly and solidly based. Nothing could be worse, and nothing could more harm the cause of those who seek to have integration in this country, than to rush into hastily and badly-devised schemes without the co-operation and assistance of those who must co-operate if the schemes are to work. Nothing could do more harm to their cause, nor would it do anything but harm to the unfortunate children who might be involved, than unsuccessful experiments.

To sum up, the implication of the new clause is that virtually all handicapped


children should be educated in ordinary schools. As I have said, for many of these children that is indeed the right answer. It is the Government's policy, and it is the policy of many local education authorities, to move in that direction. Many handicapped children, particularly the partially sighted and the blind, could do well in ordinary schools if given adequate facilities, the right skilled teachers and the right atmosphere in which such experiments can thrive.

Everyone who has spoken in the debate has expressed tremendous concern for the welfare of disabled children as well as tremendous concern for the establishment of successful schemes of integation. I share hon. Members' concern and their wish to see as much movement as possible and as quickly as possible in that direction, but the new clause is not the way to achieve it. It could harm the cause they seek to aid. It would be to the benefit of disabled children if the new clause were withdrawn.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: We on the Opposition side of the House very much welcome this debate and we would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) on taking the initiative with my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) in this matter and on his extremely interesting presentation of the case for the new clause.
What the debate has shown, without a shadow of doubt, is that there is no monopoly of compassion or concern in this matter. We have had hon. Members from both sides of the House speaking with great authority on the subject. I hope my hon. Friends will forgive me if, in order to save time, I do not go through their speeches in detail, but merely express general appreciation of the contributions they have made.
We all agree that education is of particular importance in relation to the disabled. We have not done enough in the past, but, on the other hand, we have done something. It is sometimes forgotten that it was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who in November 1973, when she was Secretary of State, appointed the Warnock Committee to look into the question of the disabled and the handicapped in relation to education. I look forward to the com-

mittee's report with a certain amount of trepidation, but at any rate it will be an interesting focus of discussion.
We in the Conservative Party have set up a study group on this question, and it will be one of our principal concerns in the coming 12 months, either in Opposition or in Government, to develop our policy on special education.
The issue which the new clause enshrines is an extremely difficult one to decide because there are passionate advocates on both sides of the question—those strongly arguing for special schools and those who equally strongly argue against them and who say it is vital that children should be educated in ordinary schools and that special schools should be reduced to a minimum or even got rid of altogether.
The view in favour of special schools was expressed a short time ago by the London Head Teachers Association when it said:
It is difficult to discover the origins of the present allegedly favourable climate towards integration, other than a rather dubious egalitarianism based on little fact and no hard evidence.
Those are strong words. I myself prefer the attitude which I expressed in the education debate in the House last year, when I said:
However, so far as possible, those with special needs should be educated in ordinary schools."—[Official Report, 24th November 1975, Vol. 901, c. 499.]
I think that that is the general view which has been expressed from this side of the House during the debate.
Even if one takes that view, there will always be a need for special schools. It is right that a tribute should be paid to their work and the work of the teachers in them. It is remarkable that those teachers, who really have the heaviest burden of all in the profession, are the least complaining.
I remember visiting a special school for physically handicapped children in North Carolina during a visit to the United States where the children were looked after by the local nuns. They started the school rather by accident because somebody had left a physically handicapped child on the convent doorstep. The nuns took the child in, and from that the whole school grew up. I remember going through the school. It


also had a nursing section for the severely physically handicapped. The love that was shown to the children was remarkable.
There was one child, a little boy, with a hydrocephalic head by whom, I am afraid, I was literally shocked. It was wonderful to see one of the nuns to whom the boy was not a monster or someone with a deformity. To her, he was a child. She picked up the little boy and kissed him and showed him love. That is an example of a special school doing what those who argue for the use of non-special schools want. The nun was treating the child as an ordinary child. That is what lies behind the advocacy of the use of ordinary schools. We all know examples in our constituencies of schools which have done this work. I have mentioned the school in my constituency that I recently visited, Woodlands, which has a magnificent reputation for the work that is being done.
It is right to exempt special schools from the provisions of the Bill. Special educational treatment in special schools should go on. We have no objection to that, but it is consistent with that attitude also to support these other schools. One does not exclude the other.
As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South said, the new clause seeks to change the emphasis made in the 1944 Act, which said in effect that those who were handicapped or disabled should be educated normally in special schools, unless there were indications to the contrary. As I take it, the hon. Member is turning that around, altering the balance, and saying that they should be educated in ordinary schools unless the disablement is so great as to need a special school.
It is at this point that I was puzzled by the resistance to the new clause shown by the Under-Secretary. The hon. Lady seemed to be under the impression that the 1944 Act's set of priorities was still in force. But her Department has changed its policies on this. I take it that the new clause puts into effect, in sharp form perhaps, the practice of the Department. I remind the Minister of her own words on 12th April 1976, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mt. Edge) about blind children:

My Department's view has long been that no handicapped child should attend a special school if his needs can be met by an ordinary school, and I am anxious to furuther this policy."—[Official Report, 12th April 1976; Vol. 909, c. 382.]
What on earth is the difference between the Under-Secretary and her hon. Friend? They seem to be in entire agreement.

Miss Margaret Jackson: I am sorry, but the hon. Member has clearly failed to understand the tenor of my speech. It disturbs me, much though I hope not to have to vote against the clause, that he should be suggesting that he is proposing to support it. Most of us in the House, and certainly those in the Chamber at the moment, agree that some far greater measure of integration than has been the case in the past is indeed taking place. Most of us at present in the Chamber certainly agree that a great deal more would be a good thing.
But the point that I put to my hon. Friend and the point which I must put again to the hon. Member is that if the new clause were to be carried into law it would be an abrupt and extreme reversal of the existing situation which would place many handicapped children in schools and in circumstances which are totally unfitted to receive them. That would not be in the interests of the schools or of the children.

6.45 p.m.>

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is an interesting point and it may or may not be correct, but it is not the point that the hon. Lady was making earlier. It is a different one. I am not attemting to misrepresent the hon. Lady, but the impression she gave us was that she was going backward away from the Department's policy rather than forward. If that is not so, I am glad to hear it and I shall not pursue the point.
We also welcome that part of the new clause under which parents are brought in. That is in accordance with our philosophy of increasing parental influence in education and our belief that, if a child is to go to a special school, parental consent is required. That again reverses the present situation. I understand that at the moment a child can be withdrawn from a special school with the consent of the local authority. The parent can go to the Secretary of State. But the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South is


bringing in the parent at an earlier stage, and I think that that is right.
As the hon. Member said, a question of loneliness is involved in handicap. There is a profound need here to assuage inner loneliness as well as physical isolation. Those who are handicapped suffer from a spiritual loneliness, and the hon. Member rightly underlined this. That again is an argument for the ordinary school, because it leads to the understanding of others—in two ways.
The first way is through the exchange which goes on within an ordinary school from which the unhandicapped child benefits as much as the handicapped child. It is part of the education of both and it is an exchange in this respect between equals. The second point is that what we are trying to do in society and what the educators are trying to do is to enable a handicapped person to live as nearly as possible a normal life. What more natural, therefore, if the aim of the education is to be integration into society, than to start that integration in the school itself and to face the problems which arise as early as possible?
Of course, there must be a question of balance. The balance that one looks for is not only a balance between the needs of children who have to go to special schools and those who need help within the setting of an ordinary school, but a balance in the educational process itself, looking to a child not as a disablement category but as an individual, with individual needs and problems. That is the point made so strongly in the evidence of ILEA to the Warnock Committee.
As the Under-Secretary said, we should do more. I agree, but we look to the Government in this respect to give an initiative. We can talk; the Government can act. I am glad to hear about the pilot schemes, but it is not really enough at this stage to be talking about pilot schemes. One of the unfortunate side effects of the cutting back of the nursery programme—I fully understand the economic reasons for doing so—is that it hits the handicapped child particularly hard. The handicapped child needs nursery education more, and profits from it more, than the unhandicapped child. It is the same with disadvantaged people in a poor area. The advantage of nursery education is that it is a means of indenti-

fying handicap earlier, and that is of extreme importance.
Secondly, we should do more to help set up units for the disabled within ordinary schools. Thirdly, let us not forget the students, those who are in further, advanced and university education. The physically handicapped student needs help. As far as I can recall, only one college caters for them, Hereward College. We must face the fact that it is a very expensive investment, but it is doing quite good work.
Could not the Department also do more in the technological field? That point was made by the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), who has done extremely important pioneer work in this field and has argued tirelessly for the greater use of technology. This is resisted by the bureaucrats. Bureaucracy is a state of mind, not an occupation. The bureaucrats in political parties—we are infested by them—will say "We cannot spend money on this. It would increase Government expenditure." The hon. Member is saying that in this case we really can have our cake and eat it, because we could have the greater help and could save money if only we spend the money we have intelligently, investing it in this technological field so that we get a big return.
We are grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South for raising this important subject and enabling us to have a long overdue debate on it. That has been a benecial side effect of this wretched Bill—the only beneficial side effect we have had. Nevertheless, we must be grateful for small side effects. We are in a dilemma over voting for the new clause. We do not wish to vote for voting's sake. I understood from what was said by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South that he had received assurances from the Under-Secretary on some action her Department was to take in return for the withdrawal of the new clause. What that arrangement is may be clear to the hon. Member, but it was not clear to us from the speech of the hon. Lady.
I would not presume to give the hon. Gentleman advice about this. We favour the clause, but the hon. Gentleman has been its initiator and he is supported by hon. Members on this side. We shall be


content to abide by his judgment as to whether the concession he has obtained from the hon. Lady is sufficient to merit the withdrawal of the clause. He must judge that. If he judges that it should be withdrawn, we shall not press the issue to a Division. If he judges that it would be useful to have a Division on it, we shall certainly support him.

Mr. Ashley: I greatly appreciate the considerate way in which my old sparring partner from Cambridge, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas), has spoken with such sympathy and consideration that deafness in this Chamber is irrelevant. I much appreciate that. He has lost none of his old skill, and in fact has become more adept over the years. He is as silky and as skilful as ever, but with the hook at the very end: he should not be a Member of Parliament; he should be a fisherman. But he should really stay here because he is so good at his job. I warmly congratulate him.
The nub of the issue is the assurances that I have received from Ministers. As I said in my opening speech, I have had discussion with every Minister in the Department of Education and Science, and we have had some very heated moments and some angry exchanges—as between colleagues, because the Ministers are anxious to do all they can for disabled people, as I am—and we have had difficulty in finding a point of agreement. As the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, it boils down to what a Labour Back Bencher may decide to do when faced with a situation of this kind.
I have spoken of the loneliness of the disabled. No one but the profoundly disabled knows how lonely a disabled person is. People apart from his family and friends, really do pass him by in every situation. Therefore, he must face this situation within the community. This clause will do more to help the integration of such children in education than any other, which is one of the reasons why one supports it, but as the hon. Member for Chelmsford knows better than anyone, no one can seize a clause out of context and out of perspective.
It so happens that the Minister with special responsibility for the disabled is present today. He knows better than

anyone how we have, between us, forced money from the Government to help disabled people over a very wide field. The Government are faced with a great economic crisis. I must recognise that, and although the Opposition believe this will cost very little, I believe it will demand more public expenditure. We must be frank and honest about this and face reality, and the fact that we must maintain or even cut public expenditure. Given the assurance of the Under-Secretary that she is sympathetic, and is willing to have private discussions and to meet local authorities—and those are the assurances that I and others have had—and bearing in mind the constraint on public expenditure and the expressions of good will, I feel the House ought really to allow withdrawal of this new clause and the amendments and I should appreciate it if that were done.
I greatly appreciate the hon. Gentleman's final words because if this clause is forced to a vote it may result in the party political animus which we have been able to keep away from the problems of the disabled. Hon. Gentlemen will have listened to the debate and learned a lesson from the fine speeches we have heard, and I would appreciate it if the motion were allowed to be withdrawn. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 31

PARENT MEMBERSHIP OF GOVERNING BODIES

'3.—(1) At least one quarter of the body of managers of every county primary school and of the body of governors of every county secondary school shall consist of persons who are parents of pupils attending at the school.

(2) It shall be the duty of every local education authority to provide in accordance with arrangements approved by the Secretary of State for the election to the body of managers of each county primary school and to the body of governors of each county secondary school maintained by them, of the one-quarter or more of the total number of the governors or the managers who are parents of pupils attending at the school by the parents of pupils attending the schools, and for a patent so elected ceasing to be on such body of managers or governors (as the case may be) on the parent ceasing to have a child attending as a pupil at that school but without prejudice


to the right of that parent to be otherwise appointed to that body of managers or governors.

(3) Parent governors or managers shall be elected annually.

(4) Courses of training for governors or managers of schools are to be provided by local education authorities and these courses shall include instruction on the rights, powers and duties of governors and managers'.—[Mr. St. John-Stevas.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): It will be convenient to discuss at the same time New Clause No. 46 (Composition of governing bodies).

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The ecumenical interlude is over, and we return to our normal robust diversity of approach.
The rôle of governors and managers of schools is a subject which is very much in the forefront of our minds because we are awaiting the report of the Taylor Committee on the rôle of governors and managers and how they should be selected. I am glad to see with us the former Secretary of State for Education and Science, the right hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice), because he it was who, in response to promptings from the Opposition, set up that committee and got this most important inquiry under way. It is fitting that the right hon. Gentleman should be here, however briefly, to see that his initiative is bearing fruit. It is no reflection on the present Secretary of State to say that we never cease to miss the right hon. Gentleman from our debates. They seem to have lost something since he departed, and not even the new Minister of State makes up for that.
It is the policy of the Opposition to encourage parents to take a very full part in the education process and in our schools. As we pointed out yesterday, we want to have links between the maintained and independent sectors. We want to see a very wide exchange of facilities and ideas. We should like to see widely followed the example set by schools such as Wellington, which has generously cooperated with other schools in its area, so that what can be misrespresented as

privilege for a few can become for the benefit of all.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Heresy.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My hon. and learned Friends call that "heresy". That must be based on the assumption that what he says is orthodoxy. If my hon. and learned Friend is orthodox, I am probably better off as a heretic.
One of the benefits of schools in the private sector is that, by and large, they have strong and effective governing bodies. That is why in so many cases the schools are of a very high quality. As the Minister of State might put it, why should the devil have all the good tunes? Why should we not look at the private sector to see what good ideas are there and what is working there and apply them pari passu or even mutatis mutandis—

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gerry Fowler): Or "as the case may be".

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Or as the case may be—in the maintained sector.
Why should not people have as much pride in their local comprehensive as they do, for example, in Eton or Harrow? I hasten to point out that I was educated at neither of those establishments. This relates to the wider social point that what is needed in our society more than anything else today is not great outpourings of public money on various projects. What is needed is something very much more important, which is the restoration of a sense of community in our society. We can achieve that with very little money, and here we can link up such matters as the preservation of small schools, the fostering of village schools and the strengthening within the maintained sector of boards of governors and managers so that they are effective in their activities and create a pride in their schools which will be of the greatest benefit to the children who will attend them. It will also help solve a lot of the problems of the impersonal, large comprehensive school if the headmaster or headmistress can be backed up by an active, interested and informed board of governors.
From time to time during these debates we have talked about parental choice, and it is right that we should do so. We wish to extend parental choice. But of equal


importance is parental influence. Some people would say that it is even more important than parental choice.
When I launched the now famous Parents' Charter at Stockport in 1974, it was greeted rapturously by the official spokesman of the NUT who, unfortunately, had got the party line wrong. He was immediately silenced and his statement was replaced by another statement from the Secretary, Mr. Fred Jarvis, who referred to the Parents' Charter as
the greatest cover-up since Watergate".
Even for the extravagant language to which one is used in educational circles, that was hitting a new high—or low. It was the proviso about parental managers and governors which led to that statement of support and to a great many other statements of support which were not as evanescent as that of the official spokesman of the NUT.
In the course of these debates, we have referred to various provisions of the Parents' Charter. I now wish to refer to the third provision, which comes after the amendment of Section 76 of the Education Act to give greater effect to parental wishes and after providing a system of appeals, which is point 2. We say:
Third, we will give parents the right to be represented on all school boards of managers and governors. The proportion of parents should be substantial. It could be between a third and half of the governing body. Parental governors should be elected by a postal ballot of all parents with children at a particular school. In this way parents will be enabled to take and show an interest in the schools which their children attend and secure improvements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) has been working during the past 12 months on giving flesh and blood to the skeleton of the Parents' Charter. The Opposition are deeply indebted to him for his work in this respect. He has been canvassing the opinions and getting the advice and help of those engaged in education. Shortly, we shall be in a position to put forward a revised version of the charter with very wide educational support.
New Clause 31 is a foreshadowing of what is to come. It states that
At least one quarter of the body of managers of every county primary school and of the body of governors of every county

secondary school shall consist of persons who are parents of pupils attending at the school.
A minimum is laid down—not a maximum. There has been some discussion on the proportion of parents who should serve on a governing body. Some would fix the proportion as high as 50 per cent. Others want a smaller proportion. That matter may be the subject of continuing debate. It is important that there should be a reasonable proportion.
I do not think that one parent governor should be isolated among officials, education experts, from which may heaven deliver us, and teachers—may they prosper. One parent alone faced with such fierce competition cannot he an effective influence. The question of numbers, proportion and percentage is of vital importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking—should he be so fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—will expatiate succinctly on that point.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: As ever.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful for that amen from the Minister. I hope that we shall have a more formal amen later. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be in a more benevolent mood when he addresses the House. He became out of control when he left the subject of education. Last night he provoked hon. Members, with disastrous effects, on the subject of the Government's timetable. We all trust that the same will not occur this evening. It is a valediction, benediction and imprecation all at the same time.
In New Clause 31(3) we suggest that
Parent governors or managers shall be elected annually.
That is a matter of debate. Some people think that an election annually is too often and that the election should coincide with the appointment of the general governing body. Fortunately, those who give such advice have retired temporarily from the scene. We are not wedded to particular words. We put forward clauses to probe Government intentions and to stimulate Government action, if that is possible.
We are perfectly happy to receive an assurance from the Minister on what the Government intend to do. We shall be happy to withdraw the clause and wait for something better. However, we require something fairly definite in the


way of a commitment from the Minister. If he has the power to give it, we shall gratefully accept it.
New Clause 31(4) states that
Courses of training for governors or managers of schools are to be provided by local education authorities and these courses shall include instruction on the rights, powers and duties of governors and managers".
It is difficult to be an effective manager or governor of a school. It is a function that cannot be carried out simply by the use of native shrewdness. There are problems that must be dealt with, and it would be useful to have brief courses to help and encourage people to take on this work. New Clause 31 is a constructive contribution to the educational argument.
My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) produced a Private Member's Bill to put into operation certain provisions of the Parents' Charter. Here we have another opportunity to do so. I hope that the Minister will take the clause seriously.
7.15 p.m.
New Clause 46 deals with the composition of governing bodies. That is governed by Section 17 of the Education Act 1944, which provides that not more than one-third of the managers or governors of a maintained school shall be appointed by the local education authority. That is an important change. It recognises the legitimate rôle of the local education authority, which should have one-third of the places. It says that other considerations are involved. Too often, although not by any means in all cases, appointment to a governorship is regarded as a reward for political services. It is the local government equivalent of an MBE. This is a waste and misuse of a potentially important position.
We go on to suggest that in a county school two-thirds of the managers or governors should be appointed by approved local interests, in accordance with the rules of management in the case of primary schools and in accordance with the articles of government in relation to secondary schools.
There is another entrenched one-third provision in the case of voluntary controlled schools. Besides the one-third of the governors or managers who are to be appointed by the local education auth-

ority, another one-third must be approved by local interests, as agreed.
We then come to this most important provision for voluntary aided schools, where two-thirds of the governors or managers shall be appointed by the foundation. That is the position at present. We want to make it clear that although we want a revision of the proportions of governors under Section 17 of the 1944 Act, we do not wish to do anything to weaken the position of the voluntary aided school. That, alas, is being done in other parts of the Bill. Voluntary aided schools are being attacked as no other Government in our history have dared to attack them. They are taking away their rights over the organisation of their own schools. We want no part in that. We want to strengthen those schools. We fear that the attack on the organisation and powers of the voluntary aided schools will be followed by a further attack on their powers over the curriculum, which is a vital part of the independence of the schools. The safeguard lies in the two-thirds of the governors appointed by the foundation. We confirm that in the clause.
New Clause 46(5) suggests that there should be among the governors appointed by local interests at least one parent-governor elected by the parents at the school, one teacher-governor elected from the teachers of the school, and the head teacher or a governor appointed by the head teacher. It is suggested that there should be other local representatives. It is important that there should be an election.
I return to the question of parent governors. The advantage of having an election of parent governors by parents of other children of the school is that we involve those parents with the school and give them a focal point of interest. That is all to the good. It strengthens the school. We suggest that that election should be by secret postal ballot.
I hope that we may make progress this evening. If the Minister of State is not provocative, we shall no doubt make better progress than we made last night. If he is in a good mood, if I have not put him in a bad mood by what I have said, we shall all be happy and shall all benefit. This is an extremely important clause. The fact that our remarks upon it may


be brief in no way detracts from the importance we attach to it.
I have indicated to the Minister why we have tabled the clauses and I have spoken of the difficult issues involved. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give a constructive reply and see what he can do to increase parental influence in the schools and so make them more effective in educating the children entrusted to them.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: I have no idea why the hon. Gentleman suggested that I was provocative or in a bad mood yesterday evening. It is true that on occasions I had to raise my voice slightly to make myself heard above the informed educational comments of his hon. Friends, but I thought that in general I was in one of my more cheery, benevolent moods.
Why the hon. Gentleman should have suggested that this was the end of the infusion into our debates today of the ecumenical spirit is beyond my comprehension. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was well aware that he and I were the founders of the ecumenical movement in educational administration. That alliance was firmly cemented in Committee. It is true that on occasions we both had to look with disapprobation at some of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends—I do not cast my glance in any particular direction—who made some extremely provocative remarks, but the hon. Gentleman and I always remained unified in our devotion to ecumenism in education. That ecumenical spirit continues.
If I may strike a personal note rather than a ministerial note, I thought that the hon. Gentleman was excessively moderate in what he said today. I say that with great care, because, knowing his dedication to research, I have no doubt that he has read my speech to the annual conference of the National Association of Parent-Teacher Associations in 1972 or 1973. He will find that what I said then went rather further than what he said today. Indeed, I do not know why he should suggest in subsection (5) of New Clause 46 that only one parent governor should be elected
by and from the parents of the school".
That seems to me—again I speak in a purely personal capacity—to be excessively modest.
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that my ecumenism does not extend to legislation at present. Here I think I can speak for my right hon. Friend. We hold firmly to the principle that we must extend the rights of parents and teachers in the government and management of schools, but that it would be unwise to pass legislation while the Taylor Committee, which we appointed to investigate exactly that problem, is still deliberating on what may prove to be one of the most important reforms in the administration of education for a very long time.
I do not want to dwell on the words of the new clauses or on some of their drafting defects, because I readily concede that the hon. Gentleman had acute difficulty, when he had to draft 95 new clauses overnight, in getting the detail of every one of them precisely right. The whole House will have sympathised with him in his task. We all imagine him sitting in his bath set into the floor, with a wet towel round his head as he scribbled new clauses madly throughout the night.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman has left out the harp.

Mr. Fowler: Then we imagine the hon. Gentleman scribbling new clauses with one hand while playing his harp with the other.
It is not apparent exactly how the clauses are to be reconciled. I assume that the hon. Gentleman will again say that the Government have a choice, but it is not apparent, on looking at them, that there is intended to be a choice. The first subsection suggests that
At least one-quarter of the body of managers of every county primary school and of the body of governors of every county secondary school shall consist of persons who are parents of pupils attending at the school.
The second discusses the mode of appointment of managers and governors and moves into the language of "thirds". I do not wish, by accepting such clauses, to cause grave mathematical problems for local education authorities. Therefore, whilst I think that the hon. Gentleman's intention is admirable, it seems to me that the clauses would not be suitable for passage into law.
When we have the report of the Taylor Committee we might want also to question the proposition that governors or


managers should cease to be governors or managers when they cease to be parents of pupils at the school. I raise here an old familiar problem about parental governors or managers, namely, that by the time they have become known to the generality of the body of parents, and have become elected to be governors or managers, not much of their own child's period at the school may be left. There is a positive weakness here in that one gives an advantage to those with large families so spaced that they regularly have a child at the same school and may, therefore, remain governors or managers for a long period. It is open to question whether one should want to provide that when the child leaves school any parent governor or manager should automatically cease to be a governor or manager of that school.
There is a problem that we discussed at some length in Committee, that of election by postal ballot of the body of parents. It was never clear in Committee who would keep the electoral roll and how the ballot papers would be distributed. I think that one hon. Member suggested that it would be done by giving the papers to the children, but I suspect that other Conservative Members did not much like that proposition. It was not clear how a postal ballot would be conducted. There are details that need much more examination than we can give them today.
The same goes for the proposition that
Courses of training for governors or managers of schools are to be provided by local education authorities and these courses shall include instruction on the rights, powers and duties of governors and managers.
That may well be right, and I have much sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said. There would be some public expenditure implications. I draw attention to them in an almost ritual fashion, but it is important that we all recognise that there are those implications, and that we cannot ignore them.
Again, while they may be desirable, we shall want to see the recommendations of the Taylor Committee, first as to whether it is necessary or desirable and, secondly, if it is necessary or desirable, how it is to be accomplished. That is not spelt out by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman does not say whether the LEA would lay on special instruc-

tion at the school, whether the further education colleges would provide such courses, or whether he would lay them on in Smith Square.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: What part of Smith Square?

Mr. Fowler: Perhaps I should be laying them on in Smith Square. I leave that matter open.
7.30 p.m.
Strong views are held about this subject. The hon. Member for Chelmsford holds strong views and he knows that I also hold strong views, but we both know that although we are full of ecumenical spirit, there are zealous heretics in the opposite camp and there may be zealous heretics in the local authority camp. Clearly, it is better to await the report of the Taylor Committee, to go as swiftly as possible through consultation with the interests affected—the local education authorities, teacher organisations and others—and then come to a conclusion. That would be the appropriate time for legislation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I am not being unsympathetic, but I must ask the House to reject the new clause as anticipatory to Taylor.

Mr. Freud: I totally agree with the Minister that while the Taylor Committee is sitting it is extravagant to come forward with proposals conceived in a short time with insufficient thought. Although I may be too late to express this view, I should like the Taylor Committee to look at several matters of deep concern to many people.
The Taylor Committee should examine the failure of governors and school managers. I am not talking about political influence, because it is right for local authorities to appoint politicians to sit on the boards of management and to serve as school governors. But often such appointments are made as a reward for years of incompetent local service. An appointment to a board of management should never be a reward for anything but should be given to people who are passionately interested in something.
There should be more representation of parents and teachers and local citizens such as shopkeepers who live nearby, householders who might have their windows broken by passing children, and


people who are interested in education. Perhaps we should eliminate from boards of management anyone who has been or has toyed with becoming an educational psychiatrist.
The Taylor Committee might also consider that "lollipop" ladies or gentlemen and school meals organisers should have a say in the management of a school. They should be people to whom parents can go in an official rather than an unofficial capacity. Youth club leaders, almost of their own right, and churchmen, where they exist and have relevance, should also serve on boards of management.
I disagree with New Clause 31 which says that parent governors should be elected annually. When a parent becomes a governor of a school, that is often the first time that he has had any experience of sitting on a committee. It takes nearly a year to master the art of tabling amendments and moving a motion. The average school does not have many meetings of school governors and a parent who sensibly decides to spend his first two or three meetings learning the procedure and the next few meetings feeling his feet, will find that the year is over before he has made a real contribution.
It is wrong to disqualify a parent governor merely because his child has left the school. By all means if the child left a long time ago, have a provision granting a year's grace on either side. It is important to remember that the job of governor depends on his having learned something of the procedure.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) concede that the most valuable work done by governors or managers is not necessarily that which they do at formal meetings, but the interest that they take in the running of the school between meetings? While I sympathise with him when he says that parents should not necessarily have to stand for election each year, most of the good work that they do is that of taking an active interest in the school—in the teaching, sport and social activities between meetings.

Mr. Freud: I agree. If the intervention by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has helped to stop

him from rising to his feet, we shall be the richer. The hon. Gentleman is right, but if it had not been for his intervention, I might now be seated.

Mr. Peter Morrison: Basically the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) is against governors being elected annually, but surely he is in favour of elections.

Mr. Freud: I am totally in favour of elections. I was saying that parent governors should have more than one year to prove themselves. I should be happier if they could have an initial period of two years, although perhaps there should be a right to disqualify after a year. If someone has attended a course or read books about being a governor, one year is a short time for him to put that knowledge into practice.

Sir G. Sinclair: I am grateful for the kind words that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas) said about my campaign to bring into use, for the benefit of schools, one of the additional resources in education which is grossly under-used today. I refer to the continuing responsibility by parents for the future of their children during schooldays, the amount of work that they are prepared to do and the ideas that they are prepared to bring forward to improve their children's schools. We are proposing in New Clause 31 to bring the strength of parents into a more valuable association with the schools.
We hoped earlier in the debate by a new clause, to ensure that parents had a greater freedom of effective choice of schools for their children. We hoped that if their preferences were unduly thwarted there would through other new clauses be an independent appeal board. By this new clause we are hoping to bring the parents into a natural alliance with the school, and I think that the Minister sees the force of our case.
Children are at home for far longer than they are at school, and the overriding responsibility for bringing up children must remain, where it has always been, with the parents. They cannot rightly delegate that responsibility unless they have great confidence in the school. When society is changing so rapidly and parents are worried about the problems which their children face, it is right that parents should make their influence more


widely felt in the schools in which their children are spending so much of their formative years.
We put forward this proposal in a constructive way. It is not right that parents should continue to be so isolated from what goes on in the school. Some headmasters, management committees and governing bodies welcome the closer association of parents with the school. There are also headmasters who resent attempts by parents to become more closely involved in the school, and there are management committees which take the same view. That is wrong and unhealthy.
In some parts of the country, by tradition parents have been very close to the individual members of the staff and to the head. Once again I refer to the pre-eminence of the Welsh experience. Such arrangements can give satisfaction to the parents and can help the school, and great benefits can result from parents, teachers and young all being associated together, not pulling against each other but working in the same direction.
Greater parental representation on boards of governors will carry this association a step further both symbolically and in the working activities of management committees and governing bodies. Local authorities and headmasters who run good schools will welcome this reinforcement, which can carry the influence of the home into the school and the influence of the school into the home, so that the child does not feel that there is conflict between the two.
There are other schools where, unfortunately, the standards of learning and conduct are failing the young. If parents served on the management committees or boards of governors of those schools, they would at least have the right, on behalf of other parents, to bring these failing into the open They would be able to get parents to bring pressure on local authorities through the elected members and through direct representations, and to make a fuss if they thought that the school was going to the bad. This activity will encourage the local authorities to seek remedies where they are needed.
7.45 p.m.
We often hear of local authorities which are unwilling to cope with difficulties in schools which may continue for years and prejudice the whole outlook and future of the children who attend schools in that area. We want the parents there to fight for the best education they can get for their children by bringing their ideas before the headmaster and the local authority. Representatives of the local authority will be sitting beside them on the management committee and governing boards. This dialogue should give a new edge to the discussions. Parents have a live interest on behalf of their children and can provide the momentum for bringing about remedial measures if they are necessary. I hope that such appointments will be helpful to good headmasters and local authorities and will prove to be a tonic where a headmaster or local authority has been less than adequate in maintaining good standards of learning and conduct in the school.
I have heard various remarks about the representation of the local authorities on management committees and boards of governors. Some members are appointed because they have a real interest in education. Others are appointed because they have not been appointed to one of the more influential committees of the local authority and are being fobbed off with an empty facade job as governor of a school. Parent governors, who have a sharp interest in the success of the school, will tone up and make more enthusiastic those members who, after all, have some qualities which enable them to be elected to the local authority.
Doubts have been expressed about the method of election of parent governors. We prefer the most open possible form of election, but the ballot itself must be secret, and I personally prefer a postal ballot.
The length of service of such governors is arguable. A parent whose child leaves school would not necessarily be disqualified; he could be appointed a governor in one of the other categories. But it is important to ensure that parent governors are not the parents of children who have left school. They must have children at the school and be able to talk to other parents with children at that


school. That is what matters. That is what gives them the driving force and the sharp interest to press for improvements.
When the Secretary of State examines the possibilities, having accepted the principle that there is a valuable and under-used resource that could be brought to help in upgrading the schools, I am sure that we shall overcome the purely administrative difficulties of how the vote should be conducted and how long people should stay, keeping to the principle that at least a third of the governors should be parents of children at the school at that time. As I have said, that gives them the interest and the right to speak on behalf of other parents who have children at the school.
That should be the driving force, and the strength for good, of governors appointed in this way. I believe they will be able to bring the worries of parents in a proper, disciplined way to the decision-making body of the school, and serve as a good and open form of communication among the parents, the local authority and the headmaster. I believe that that is healthy and good, and I hope that the Government will accept it as a principle.

Mr. Christopher Price: It is pleasant to be released after 12 months of them from one's Trappist vows as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Department of Education and Science and to be able to say something about the Bill—for the first time. I cannot remember how many Committee sittings I sat through, mute but attentive, listening to the balderdash and nonsense poured out from the Opposition Benches. It is a relief and a pleasant change for me to be able to say something at this stage. Having served a year as a PPS, I think it only sensible and right to hand over to someone younger. It is also pleasant to be able to rebut some of the hypocrisy and cant about parents which poured out from the Opposition Benches in Committee.
Historically, the Conservative Party has done nothing, in the local education authorities it has controlled, to promote the advent of parents to governing bodies. The first local education authority which arranged for the appointment of parents to its governing bodies under a

general local-authority-wide scheme was the county borough of Sheffield in 1968. I was the deputy-chairman of the education committee for some years, from which I take some pride. At the time the scheme was considered an amazing innovation. It astonished most other local education authorities in the country. It was not a Conservative local education authority. It was Labour controlled.

Sir G. Sinclair: rose—

Mr. Price: May I make my speech in my own way?

Sir G. Sinclair: rose—

Mr. Price: No. I want to make my speech in my own way, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I shall give way in a moment.

Sir G. Sinclair: I was going to say something very helpful.

Mr. Price: I am sure.
It was a Labour local education authority, urged on by the first nationwide parent organisation—namely, the Confederation for the Advancement of State Education. That organisation always had as one of its first tenets the appointment of parents to governing bodies.
The second local education authority in Britain to appoint parents to its governing bodies generally was not a Conservative local education authority but the Inner London Education Authority. Parents were appointed immediately following the three years of Conservative control. Then the Inner London Education Authority was decked out with such luminaries as Mr. Christopher Chataway and others who talked a great deal about these matters but historically, when in power, did nothing about them.
I agree that on local government reorganisation quite a few Conservative counties brought in parental representation.

Mr. Tony Durant: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us when the ILEA introduced parent representation? I am interested in the year.

Mr. Price: I am not able to put an exact year before the House, but it was about 1970. It was the year following


Labour's regaining of the ILEA, which, I think, was 1970 or 1971. That is when the ILEA started its scheme.
There is a great deal of cant and hypocrisy involved in proposals of this sort that stem from the Opposition Benches. Opposition Members do not understand, and seem incapable of understanding, that the move to bring parents on to governing bodies, which started with Labour Sheffield, followed by Labour London, followed by a number of other authorities of all political persuasions, came about because schools became comprehensive.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Nonsense.

Mr. Price: When there were grammar schools taking pupils from an enormously wide catchment area—in Sheffied it was a city-wide catchment area—no schemes were ever put forward, to my knowledge, to have elected parent representatives. Perhaps I shall be given some examples, but I know of no local authority authorised scheme for elected parent representatives for grammar schools. If there are any, I shall be pleased to hear about them.
When local education authorities went comprehensive, those which took their jobs seriously had to think about the purpose of the schools within the communities they were to serve. When schools go comprehensive, for the first time they serve, hopefully, a clearly defined community. In Sheffield and London, and I am sure in many other local education areas, only because the schools were comprehensive did it become the natural thing for members of the community, especially parents, to join in the work of the schools by being on governing bodies. Had it not been for the move towards comprehensive education the position now would probably be as it was in the 1940s and 1950s, when, as far as I know, elected parent representation on governing bodies did not exist. I am sure that there are only isolated examples of elected parent representatives on the governing bodies of county schools; if so, I shall be pleased to hear of them. However, I have never heard of an example in the past.
When we set up the Sheffield scheme I think that the authority wrote to every local education authority in Britain ask-

ing for its experience, as it was building up a scheme from scratch. There did not seem to be any experience in any other local education authority.
8.0 p.m.
It is absurd for the Opposition to try to pretend that there is some division, either in the House or in the country, about whether it is a good thing for parents to serve on governing bodies.
There are many governing bodies, and some of them resolutely keep the parents away. This applies particularly to voluntary schools, and certainly to those in London. Although all the county schools have parents serving on governing bodies because the local education authorities have the power to say that they shall be on them, very few voluntary schools have parents serving on their governing bodies because the local education authority has no standing to insist that that happens.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although parents are not directly elected to governing bodies and to voluntary aided and similar schools, often parents serve on governing bodies because they are elected through old girls' and old boys' associations.

Mr. Price: I readily agree that from time immemorial a very wide number of both voluntary and county schools have had representatives from old boys', old girls' or old pupils' associations, but that is not what we are talking about here. What the hon. Gentleman has in mind is a body such as a parent-teacher association. One is sometimes represented on those bodies by good parents, but at other times I am not so sure that that is the case.
If parents are to serve on governing bodies, I believe that the only proper way in which to achieve that situation is for them to be elected, by some method or other, out of the whole body of parents. It is interesting that Conservative Members put forward a suggestion for postal ballots when at the same time they appear to want to keep down further expenditure.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: How are parents at a meeting to be held, say, once a year likely to be able to make up their minds which parents are able to represent their interests? The parent-teacher associations frequently have social


functions and meet one another to discuss the problems of their schools. Is that not a better forum for the election of parents to school government bodies?

Mr. Price: The short answer is "No". I agree that, as the system works at present in London, it is not wholly satisfactory. The election of parents normally takes place every three years when the governors are reconstituted. Therefore, a body of parents elected on those lines may have a slightly better idea of what is taking place. When parents meet to elect parental representatives in genuine community comprehensive schools, that is not the first time that they have seen one another because they all come from the same community and know one another through many other activities in the community. Difficulty arises in selective schools which cover a wide catchment area, especially a county area, where parents may well not meet one another on other occasions.
The Inner London Education Authority adopted a courageous attitude, because obviously it was not easy to get the parent governor idea through the powerful Inner London Teachers Association, because that body was not very keen on parents serving on such bodies. Therefore, that courageous action has already borne fruit.
There are many other places in which these things have come about—for example, at the William Tyndale School. Some people will say that one side or the other is right in that affair, but what is certain is that the fact that there were parent representatives on the managers of the William Tyndale School brought the issue out into the open. Therefore, the inquiry took place very much more quickly than would have been the case if those representatives had not existed.
I believe that it would be absurd to pass these new clauses as they stand. However, it is important that we should air these matters in the House and, therefore, this occasion has not been in vain.
Taken at face value, this is another example from the Conservative Party by which it seeks a hundred and one ways of wanting to go clean against all the devolved traditions of English education which lay down exactly how the local education authorities should work. My

view is that it is far better on issues such as this to let local education authorities, along with their teachers and parent organisations, work out schemes and systems of their own.
We must all remember that the report of the Taylor Committee is almost complete. We must also remember that the Conservative Party, which has been so eloquent on these topics today, made no attempt to set up a committee to investigate the government and management of schools. That was left to a Labour Government. The Conservative Government over a period of four years had in office an eminent Secretary of State for Education and Science, but during that period she did nothing about bringing about parental representation on managing and governing bodies. The report of the Taylor Committee, and what flows from it in legislative form, may do more to change the face of English education than almost anything that has happened since the passing of the Education Act 1944.
The Labour Party has sent in a published memorandum of evidence to the Taylor Committee—which, strangely enough, is somewhat on the lines of the proposals in these two Conservative clauses. But one cannot complete the membership of governing bodies merely by taking on parents. There are other elements to be considered, such as the teachers and the pupils, who need to be represented.
I do not know whether the Conservative Party has put in any evidence to the Taylor Committee. If so, I should be interested to read it to see whether Conservatives have bothered to work out what they think. I want to know whether they have put their considered opinion where their parliamentary mouth is. We can then see whether it is a lot of hot air or whether it has any real substance. I hope that we shall discover whether Conservatives have a genuine commitment to the idea of parent governors. I believe that there is a broad feeling on these lines among many Conservatives. I know that there are no statistics in the local education authorities on this subject and, therefore, we cannot know the exact position, but I am confident that if we could obtain such statistics it would be found that it is the Conservative, and particularly the "independent", controlled local education authorities which are the backsliders


in the provision of schemes for parent-governors of county schools. In fact, many voluntary schools have not got around to this idea. It is difficult for them because it could upset their delicate built-in majority under the 1944 Act.
In conclusion, I cannot believe that the Conservatives really intend to vote on this matter, even though it was right that it should have been aired in a debate, but just to deflate them a little, we on this side of the House have far more to be proud of than they have in bringing elected parent governors on to the boards of governors of schools.

Mr. Roger Sims: I have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), not least to the point he made about the desirability of the Minister not telling local authorities how to organise local education, that he should leave them to get on with it. Those sentiments will be read with interest by a lot of local authorities, particularly Tameside.
Whatever the outcome of this clause, this has been a useful debate in that it has given hon. Members on all sides an opportunity of ventilating the matter. I endorse the case put by my hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair). One of the great faults of the present system is that many of the appointments to governing bodies are almost entirely party political appointments. All political parties are involved in this.
I was, in fact, one such appointment to the governing body of a school. It was neither a reward nor an attempt to fob off trouble elsewhere. I hope that I was appointed because it was thought that I could give some assistance to that body. In my case I had a particular advantage because at the time one of my children was a pupil at the school in question. The fact that I had this connection with the school made me a more useful member of the board than I should have been otherwise. It gave me quite an insight into what was going on.
When one's own children attend a particular school, one hears all sorts of things that one would not hear as an ordinary governor. At the time I was the only governor who was a parent, and that situation continued for some time. Later

I was joined by another who was also a parent, but he was also a political appointment. Nevertheless, the value of having two of us with this close connection with the school was very obvious to me.
From time to time I found that I was approached by the parents of pupils anxious about the way in which the school was being run. They put to me their points of view about certain changes they thought should be implemented, and it was up to me to listen to the voices and act upon them. The extent to which parents' voices are heard by the governing body depends to a large extent on the willingness of individual governors to pass on information.
8.15 p.m.
It would be much better if parents themselves elected their own representatives to the governing body to voice their views. The other advantage of the proposals we are discussing tonight is that parents themselves could get a much better understanding of the way in which the school is run, the powers of the governors—which are somewhat limited —and the constraints within which the school is operating.
Quite recently in my constituency there was a case when parents asked for a meeting with the governors of a school and the point which emerged from that rather noisy meeting was the parents' ignorance. I use that word in the kindest way. They did not know, or realise, the powers of the governors and what they could do or could not do. The parents spent a lot of time criticising that board of management for decisions which were quite outside the managers' responsibility. This is a concrete example of the sort of case put forward by my hon. Friends, and I hope that the House will support the clause.

Mr. Durant: I intervene in this debate because I was chairman of an excepted district in a local education authority and played some part in changing the whole philosophy on management and governors in schools in my area.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) took a harsh political line, because he is well-known for his expertise in these matters.

Mr. Ronald Bell: He is also known for his harsh political lines.

Mr. Durant: As I said, he is well known for his knowledge of this subject, which I respect, and I am sorry that he took a political line early in his speech.
However, he said that he would prefer local education authorities to decide their own formulae. I strongly believe in this, and that is why I am against this Bill in principle. The hon. Member said that the Labour Party had had great success in promoting the idea of parent participation in managing bodies. He mentioned Sheffield and ILEA in particular, but many of us were beginning to do battle on this matter at that period as well. Sheffield and ILEA may have been first, but that does not mean that others were not discussing the matter in their local education authorities.
What the hon. Member did not mention was that many teachers were far more resistant to the idea than parents. It was the teachers who felt that this was an incursion into the management of their schools.

Mr. Christopher Price: I did mention that. I said that ILEA had difficulty in persuading the Inner London Teachers' Association to support the scheme, but eventually patience and consultation were rewarded.

Mr. Durant: I accept that. This was a difficulty which I encountered.

Mr. Flannery: I am a Member for Sheffield, and I assure the hon. Member as an executive member of the National Union of Teachers representing Sheffield that there was not the slightest difficulty from Sheffield teachers. They were more than willing to join in and all our governing and managing bodies now have two elected teachers.

Mr. Freud: Well done!

Mr. Durant: As the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), "Well done". I said that in some parts of the country there was some resistance on the part of teachers. I am not saying that Sheffield was good, bad, or indifferent. I am talking about the general problem of persuading teachers to take this matter seriously and to involve more parents in participation. One of our aims in these clauses is to increase the percentage of parent participation.
I agree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, West that the present system of having one parent appointed by some special sanctimonious agreement gives rise to the parental fanatic who turns up with tremendous pressure and bias, and with his own axe to grind. The idea of having a percentage is a better approach which will overcome that difficulty, and I welcome that element of the proposals because some of the parents who wish to participate are not always the most suitable.
I do not mean that in an unkind way. It is a natural tendency to have a fanatic on the board, but that is not good for the school. The governing bodies need someone who can contribute, not someone who is joining, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas) said, because a secondary school means an OBE or a primary school means an MBE. The governing body needs someone who will participate in the school, contribute to it and enter into its activities.
I welcome the proposal on training. The local education authority of which I was chairman before I became a Member of Parliament carries out such training. Recently it operated a postal ballot for governorships in the way that has been suggested. That is not as expensive as has been suggested. It does not cost an enormous amount of money, and it is a step worth considering.
I should like the governors to have more power. We are told that the Taylor Committee is considering this point. I should like governors to be as they were under the old LCC when they had financial powers of their own, provided from central funds, with which they could express their own view on how to help the school. Unfortunately, most governors have no monetary power, and that is a pity because often they know better than others the priorities of the school. They would not need to have large sums at their disposal, but there are schemes with which they would like to assist.
The Minister says that we should await the Taylor Committee report and then act upon it. Since I came to the House I have become a little jaundiced about such Committees. We all waited for the Layfield Committee and I am not sure that that has not been a damp squib. I


am a little worried that the Taylor Committee may go the same way. I am therefore not entirely convinced that there is a valid argument for doing nothing. I believe that we should press on rather than wait for the Committee. We can always evaluate the Committee against what is now proposed, but it would be wrong to sit and do nothing.
My criticism of our proposals centres on the question of annual elections. I have a reservation here. Most school governors have one meeting per term, and if they are annually elected, it will take them a couple of terms to get to know what the job is all about.
I spent a considerable amount of my time trying to secure fewer councillors sitting on local governing bodies. Often the school mistrusts them, and it is said that often they only arrive at the prize-giving because it could mean a few extra votes at the next election. Of course I do not suggest that the councillor who takes a genuine and long-standing interest in a particular school should be excluded. But if a councillor is put on to a governing body because it is one member short, that is the wrong approach. Head teachers mistrust such appointments. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely spoke about local shopkeepers and other local people joining such bodies, and that is an excellent avenue to explore in the search for people who will back a school. My proviso concerns the annual election, but I believe the principle is right.

Mr. John Cope: I was not a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill and I have not habitually spoken in education debates. I was lightly educated at a direct grant grammar school. I hold certain views on this question, although I express them with the diffidence of one who has nothing like the experience in this matter of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) or others. I go along with the principle of New Clause 31 but I do not like the suggestion in New Clause 46 that there should be only one parent governor. It is important that there should be several.

Sir G. Sinclair: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I see that the Minister is absent from the debate. It would be a great help—I am glad to see that he has now returned.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: When I discuss matters within the Chamber with the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson), the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) should not suggest that I have left.

Mr. Cope: We were not suggesting that the Minister was either Left or Right.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will my hon. Friend perhaps take on board that the Minister is doing much better here than in Committee? This time he is disappearing behind the Speaker's Chair, but in Committee he used to disappear behind Hadrian's Wall.

Mr. Flannery: What does that mean?

Mr. Cope: The hon. Member may well ask. I have not the faintest idea.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: The explanation of that remark is that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is so confused in his geography that he believes that Lancashire is beyond Hadrian's Wall.

Mr. Cope: Geography was included in my curriculum and I know where Hadrian's Wall is, even if my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) does not.
I was saying that it is not sufficient to have one parent governor elected. What happens when the pupil whose parent is on the board leaves school? It is important to have continuity in these posts. If there is only one parent governor, the newcomer will be unfamiliar with the procedure. It is therefore important that there should be overlapping periods of service of parent governors. The different parent governors will have different contributions to make.
The value of governing bodies is that they bring together a variety of interests which can be contributed to the life of the school. There are many schools, including those in Gloucestershire, which have parents on the governing bodies. These parents are not elected and that is an important consideration.
Some parents might get on to a governing body whether there was a system of election or appointment. If there are elections, that draws into the governing of the school those who vote as well as the individuals who are elected to the


managing body. This is a key point in the new clause. It is intended to give a role not only to the parents who get on to the governing body, but to those who take part in the elections.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Flannery: Would the hon. Member agree that many parents could do a good job on governing bodies but might not be capable of reporting back? If an elected representative of the parents could report back to them, would that not bring even more democracy into the system?

Mr. Cope: The hon. Member is right. It would be difficult to lay down the methods of doing this either centrally in an education authority or throughout the country. This is one of the purposes of, for example, parent-teacher associations. Parent governors should play a big part in the associations and elected representatives would be answerable to PTA members.
The Minister referred to the problems which parents might have in getting known to other parents while they had children at school. Parents with only one child would have a relatively short time in which to get known. It was suggested that parent governors should be allowed to continue after their children had left school. I agree that governors should be allowed a decent interval in office after their children have left the school, but it would defeat the whole principle and make a nonsense of the system if they were allowed to stay on indefinitely.
Parents might decide not to elect one of themselves as a governor. They might think that, for example, a local priest or minister might be a good person to help in the running of the school even though he had no children at the school and maybe never would have. It is the election with which we are particularly concerned in this clause rather than having parents on the governing body.
The Minister suggested that difficulties might arise over who should keep the electoral roll, but that sounded like no more than a quibble over the details of the new clause. I do not think that any problems arise in those authorities where parents are currently elected to man aging bodies.
The Minister also seemed to suggest that schools might not know the addresses of their pupils. That is so absurd that I cannot really believe the Minister meant to say it. It is a bogus argument on which we need to waste no time.
In a typical aside, the hon. Member fo the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) suggested that parents should be able to go officially to the "lollipop" lady or gentleman about the running of the school. It is sometimes difficult to tell whether the hon. Member is being serious. These ladies and gentlemen often have something to contribute which can be useful in the running of the school.
I attended a meeting a few weeks ago between the governing bodies of a primary school in my constituency and the two local parish councils. It was called to discuss with representatives of the county council the problem of the safety of the schoolchildren coming out of the school, which is on a very busy and dangerous road. The principal witness who took the major part in the discussion, was, indeed, the "lollipop" lady. She was in the best position to say what would contribute to the safety of the schoolchildren, because she stood in the road twice a day to watch them across the street.
I am glad to note that the Secretary of State has now joined us. When he was Minister of Transport we tried to persuade him to improve the road—unfortunately, without success. We are still working on that.
I was rather shocked by the suggestion from the Minister of State that the courses which, it was said, should be provided by the local education authorities for governors and managers might be provided on either side of Smith Square. It seems to me that a very important element in both these new clauses relates to the attempt to reduce rather than increase the political element in the bodies of school managers and governors. The idea that, parent governors having been elected, they should attend courses run by political parties seems to run totally counter to the suggestions being made in these two new clauses.
The important element in these new clauses is the attempt to get away from the appointment of most or all of the school governors by the local education


authority. This brings us back to considering having governors or managers at all in a school.
The point is not to have a subcommittee of the local education authority which happens to be involved with certain aspects of running the school, appointed by the authority and just there for the purpose of carrying out the LEA's wishes. The point is to have a separate body that will take a different view and help to build up the institution of the school and to give the school a flavour of its own, apart from the rules and the controls which come from the LEA.
Of course, the LEA will still have the strongest hand in the running of the school. That is inevitable. It directly pays for it and has the greatest control. But the point of having governors and managers is to have a separate body with different ideas which will also help to form the institution which is the school. That is the idea of it, and that is the point of these new clauses.
I support very strongly the last sentence of the last subsection of New Clause 46, which suggests that certain other bodies also—it is only a permissive phrase, not a binding one—might be permitted to appoint governors to schools. That is a very sensible arrangement, and one which would help to build up the separateness of the governors or managers of the school, which is what I should like to see.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: The hon. Gentleman has been talking a lot about the governors being, as it were, an entity that more or less reflects the local authority as it now is. I have been a member of a board of management and of governors in the capacity of a representative of a local authority, and at no time did I ever find the board to be a part of the establishment. Each board looked after its school.
However, one thing that struck me all the time was the lack of power that these boards of governors and managers had. I have been listening for some time to various Opposition Members talking very loosely. If even 25 per cent. of the managers of governors were parents, how would that affect the working of the managers or governors and their effectiveness?

Mr. Cope: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give way. He makes an important point. The only way in which these two new clauses would affect the powers would be by making the bodies themselves more powerful—that is the hope, at any rate—and more separate from the LEA and more able to stand up to it.
Neither of these new clauses affects the actual powers or duties of these governing bodies. My hon. Friends have said that they think the powers ought to be increased, but that is not what the debate is about. Any remarks of that kind were made, as it were, only in the margins of this debate. However, I hope, that it is something on which the Taylor Committee will be able to guide us a little.
I was concluding my remarks by emphasising the importance of having bodies of governors and managers whch are as far as possible separate from the LEA. Otherwise, how can they carry out any separate rôle that may be assigned to them?

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is a pity that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is no longer in the Chamber. He made a valuable contribution to the debate, but he spoilt it by bringing into it a totally party view by endeavouring to persuade the House that it was only Socialist education authorities that were keen to bring parents on to governing and managing bodies. That is very far from the truth. Many education authorities under Conservative control have for years practised one system or another of parents being members of such bodies.
Perhaps I may briefly establish my own credentials in this matter. I was elected to a county council. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson), who sat on that county council with me, is present in the Chamber to listen to some of the remarks I intend to make. To make a party point perhaps, I was elected in an area which hitherto had been represented by Socialists for many years.
I was the first Tory to be elected there. [Interruption.] If Labour Members want some statistics, I shall give them. When


the swing was going against the Conservative Party at the next round of local government elections, I increased my majority by six times. I say that really for the benefit of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble).
Having been elected for a division of the Warwickshire County Council, one had the opportunity, through the various county education committees, of recommending people as governors and managers. I made it my job to sit on every board of managers and governors in the area that I served. At the same time, I had people appointed. My nominations were always accepted by the committee —and this practice was carried on by members of the Labour Party representing their wards.

Mr. William Wilson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell the House that he was a member of a political party that controlled the county council. My experience with my nominations was certainly not the same as his.

Mr. Winterton: It was so in my area of North Warwickshire, in which many members of the Labour Party served as county councillors. Their nominations to boards of managers and governors were generally accepted. We endeavoured to find the very best people to serve on these boards. In many cases, without having it as part of any set plan in the county, we had parents brought on to the governing bodies among the nominations of the county councillor representing the area.
8.45 p.m.
I made a great effort to ensure that those people, male and female, took an active part in the life of the school. I made the point, when I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), that we want people who are interested in education to serve on the governing and managing bodies of schools. That is why these new clauses are of the utmost importance.
The Secretary of State and the Minister of State can no doubt fault the wording of the new clauses but it is the principle that is important. I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member

for Reading, North (Mr. Durant). Why should we wait for the Taylor Committee? In the end it might come forward with proposals that are totally unacceptable.
It would seem from the speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West that he supports the need for more parents to come on to the governing bodies. The Government have often said that there is no time like the present to get things done. Here we are giving them the opportunity to ensure that more parents may serve on these important bodies.
Yesterday the Government were not terribly keen to provide parents with statistics about examination results and the performance of a school. Today we are asking them to accept these new clauses because that will mean that more parents will be on the governing and managing bodies and they will themselves be able to find out, as part of the governing body of that school, what the examination record is. They can then pass this information back to other parents or parents likely to have children going to that school.

Mr. Lawrence: They can put it in a prospectus.

Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend says that they can put it in a prospectus. But with parents coming on to these bodies in greater numbers perhaps, irrespective of what the local education authority may say, although they no doubt will submit it to the education authority, they will get their governing body to issue a prospectus so that people are genuinely in the picture about the type of school, its teachers, its successes, its statistics and its record.
I hope that the hon. Member for Isle of Ely, who was obviously in support of the principle behind these new clauses, will reconsider his view. Rather than criticise the detail, I hope he will support the principle. I hope that he will come into the Lobby with us, because it is an important matter.

Dr. Rhodes Boyson: I rise to support my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), on this new clause. It is not just a probing new clause but is a statement of intent in respect of the Opposition's views.
If the Government will not accept the new clause as it stands, we should like to think that something like it would be put into the Bill so that thet least co-operative authority would then do at least as well as the average authority, or even the best, does now.
I think there is a movement away from political governors. We suggest in the new clause that the proportion of political governors should be no more than one third. In the other new clause—this was a point clearly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) and referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—we suggest that a minimum of 25 per cent. of the governors should come from the parents.
At one time, two-thirds of governors came from the majority party and a third from the minority. After each election there was a turn around. That was the arrangement until 1972 in ILEA. The balance was changed that year, unfortunately, and the majority party took four-fifths of the seats on governing bodies, which is not proportional to the voting. With this big turn around, political governors almost had to ask where their schools were. When action was taken in Marylebone, a map had to be issued so that the new Labour governors could find their way to the school concerned.
This is not true of only one party. One political governor, not a Labour governor, attended only governors' meetings and was never involved in the running of the school. There is no point in governors just attending meetings and not getting to know the staff and children and the aims of a school.
Elected councillors can be a link between the governing body and the authority. We have a debate ahead of us on the educational voucher which could change the financing of schools, but so long as local authorities control the purse strings, it is helpful if members of the county authority are on the governing bodies. I was fortunate in Highbury Grove to have Dame Evelyn Dennington, Chairman of the GLC, as one of my governors. She was a better link than my telephone to County Hall.
What I have said is true so long as not more than a third of the governors

are councillors. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who was himself a governor, and the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) have all said that it is important to get governors involved in a school.
Many people look upon governorships rather like MBEs and BEMs, as a reward at the end of a political career. There is even a political pecking order. I have known governors to object to being put on the governing body of school X rather than school Y because more political power was to be derived from school Y where sitting on the platform was useful whatever the colour of the hat that person wore.

Mr. Patrick Mayhew: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it was not unknown for a shift in the political balance of the education authority to mean that someone with excellent qualifications as a governor had to make way for someone whose qualifications were far less discernible?

Dr. Boyson: That is perfectly true.
I hope that something will come out of the Taylor Committee. If the new clause is accepted, we might not have to wait for its report. It may have to move faster.
Every governor should spend at least one full day a term inside his school. He should not confine himself to open days and prize days when he can be on public view. On that day, he should go around and talk to the children and the staff and see the lessons, without the head being present. At 4 o'clock, he should discuss with the head and his staff what he has seen.
I always tried to get governors of my school—and I failed only once—to agree to come for at least a minimum of one day a term and spend the whole day there, from 8.30 or 9 a.m. until about 6 p.m. when the activities declined. This should be more a requirement of governors, far more than going on a course, because some people are professional course-goers. Governors should actually come to a school and see how it works.
Parent governors are important. If parents have selected a school and a child knows that its parents want it


to go to that school and if the parents are involved in the running of the school, that school will be better than others where there is not this degree of involvement by parent governors. Many parent governors, whether of boys' or girls' schools, had children within a school and many council political nominees with children chose to serve as governors of their schools.
In my headship in Lancashire, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Noble) two of my chairman governors in succession were old boys of the school, with their own children in the school, and we can do no better than that. They had been at the school, had liked it and had sent their children back to it.
At Highbury Grove we had one parent governor, another co-opted parent governor, three governors with children at the school and one other whose children had been at the school. There were seven out of 16 involved in that way, which was of great help in running the school.

Mr. Freud: Would the hon. Gentleman disqualify as governors those with children of school age who were not sending their children to the school of which they were governors?

Dr. Boyson: It is a fair question, but a difficult one. One says that it is difficult to give a breathing space for replying to it. If a child of a governor is attending another primary school in that area, he should not be a governor of that school. If it was a comprehensive area and a governor had his son or daughter in a school other than a comprehensive school in that area, he should not be a governor. The only distinction I would make would be where it was a selective school and the person was a governor of a non-selective school. There are problems. Serious consideration should be given in the election of governors to whether their children are in the schools and whether they are people who are backing it and want the system to work well. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely made a valid point that we should bear in mind.
Reference was also made to the subject of university appointments. There should be one university appointment or

an appointment from further education in all secondary schools. Similarly, reference was made to including a youth officer who was serving in the area, and employers and representatives of trade unions might also be considered so that those responsible for the school are aware of what people in the area want. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely made the very interesting suggestion that people such as school meals supervisors and local shopkeepers whose windows get broken should also be considered, and why not?
At the William Tyndale trial reference was made to the dinner ladies wanting more order in the school and objecting to children running along the tables at lunchtime. Such people can see how a school is running and whether there is reasonable and polite behaviour. I do not object to the suggestion, which is becoming an all-party one, that there should be dinner lady representation in this way on the governing body.
I am personally not happy about an annual election. That provision slipped through among the other 90 or so new clauses. I am not completely happy about it. It takes at least a year to learn the role of a governor. My hon. Friends the Members for Reading, North, Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope) and Macclesfield suggested that one year was not enough. I do not think that it is. The ILEA practice is that a parent governor is a governor for the same term as other governors. After the four-yearly elections and the new governing body being set up, the parents elect a governor who remains a governor so long as his child is attending the school. When he stands for election, he has to say in which year his child is.
9.0 p.m.
The danger of a postal ballot involving the parents of 1,500 or 2,000 pupils at a comprehensive school is to decide who knows whom. That is particularly difficult. This, too, was a matter brought up by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. If the election was conducted at a meeting, in many cases it would be dominated by the political activists of whichever party controlled the area. We shall have to give more thought to whether it should be done by a postal ballot. However, these are minor matters.


The important factor is the acceptance of the general principle.
We are now in the third day of these interesting discussions, and we had 83 hours of deep textual analysis in Committee. A great many suggestions have been put forward, many of them all-party one, designed to improve the Bill wherever possible within the present climate of opinion. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is no longer with us. We are not dealing with the attitudes of the parties of 10 years ago. We on this side of the House have learned a few lessons, and we hope that in time Government supporters will learn. There is no doubt that a great many lessons have been learned on our side, and a political party must absorb the climate of opinion at any given time if it is to develop and continue to exist.
This succession of new clauses dealing with the issuing of prospectuses, the right of appeal, how schools are to be run and the election of parent and teacher governors are all concerned with more general public control of and involvement in the running of our schools and, to repeat a phrase which I used last night, with more open government so that people can get to know and decide and help run affairs in their areas. By that, I do not mean by leaks. I mean by genuine open government.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does not my hon. Friend agree that an increase in the number of parents on governing and managing bodies is likely to improve the standards of literacy, numeracy and behaviour in our schools?

Dr. Boyson: I have no doubt about that. People want good academic schools for their children. They also want well-disciplined schools, and the best force for this is to bring in parent governors.
I appeal to the Minister of State to absorb some of our attitude to these matters and not to bother with little footnotes about the way that we put them forward. This is the climate of the time, and I hope that he will accept our proposals. I hope that we shall have his assurance, even if he cannot accept this drafting, that the principle will be put into the Bill. If we do not have that assurance, I am sure that my hon. Friends will wish to divide the House.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: The whole House will have welcomed the audible as well as the visible presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) in an education debate once more. We are glad to have his expertise with us. I thought that he was perhaps unduly belligerent this evening, however. It may be that he has not learned that there is more joy in heaven over one repentant sinner than over those of us who have long been on the side of the angels. That is why in my opening remarks I adopted that ecumenical spirit which is so well known to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and me. I am always ecumenical with him when he comes over to join my camp.
This debate has been a source of delight. However, it is sad that some of the real difficulty over the detail of these new clauses which I and my hon. Friend pointed out were not dealt with by the hon. Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson). We heard a little about the operation of postal ballots. That presents a difficulty. However, the two clauses have not been squared in terms of the fractions that are mentioned in them. We have not had a full explanation of how the system would work whereby a governor ceased to be a governor after perhaps only one year on the governing body merely because his child had left the school.
Nor have those who spoke in the debate been clear about the distinction between parents by intent and parents by accident. I think that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) was somewhat confused about that. He seemed to think that, if someone appointed on a different principle was a parent of a child at the school, that demonstrated that the system had long operated. That is not what we are debating. We are debating an entirely new principle. That is what I mean when I refer to the appointment of parents by intent.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I ask the Minister to withdraw that disrespectful comment. My point was that many county councillors who opted to take up their right to serve on the boards of managers and governors often set out to gets parents on to those boards to benefit the school.

Mr. Fowler: I was well aware of the point made by the hon. Gentleman. However, that was not the point he made in one of his earlier interventions when he referred to voluntary schools. The same applies to his present reformation. Neither the Government nor local government accepted the principle that parents should be represented as of right. That is what we are debating tonight.
The hon. Member for Brent, North, in winding up the debate, asked whether dinner ladies should be represented. Let us broaden that. Should the non-teaching staff of schools be represented? That is a real point. It makes my case for me when I ask the House to reject the new

clauses. The Taylor Committee is considering all these complex questions. The matter is best left until the Taylor Committee has reported. If the Opposition press this matter to a vote, I must ask my hon. Friends to reject the new clause.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. James Hamilton (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 256.

Division No. 216.]
AYES
[9.9 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith


Allaun, Frank
Dalyell, Tam
Hatton, Frank


Anderson, Donald
Davidson, Arthur
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Archer, Peter
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Denzil (Llaneill)
Heffer, Eric S.


Ashley, Jack
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hooley, Frank


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Horam, John


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Deakins, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon Denis


Atkinson, Norman
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Huckfield, Les


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Dempsey, James
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Bates, Alf
Dolg, Peter
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Bean, R. E.
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Beith, A. J.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hunter, Adam


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dunn, James A.
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dunnett, Jack
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Bishop, E. S.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Eadie, Alex
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Edge, Geoff
Janner, Greville


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Ellis. John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
English, Michael
John, Brynmor


Bradley, Tom
Ennais, David
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Jones, Dan (Burniey)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Evans, John (Newton)
Judd, Frank


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Kaufman, Gerald


Buchan, Norman
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kelley, Richard


Buchanan, Richard
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kerr, Russell


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Flannery, Martin
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Kinnock, Neil


Campbell, Ian
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lamble, David


Canavan, Dennis
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Lamborn, Harry


Cant, R. B.
Ford, Ben
Lamond, James


Carmichael, Neil
Forrester, John
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)


Carter, Ray
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrokin)
Leadbltter, Ted


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lee, John


Cartwright, John
Freeson, Reginald
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Freud, Clement
Lever, Rt Hon Harold


Clemitson, Ivor
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
George, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cohen, Stanley
Gilbert, Dr John
Upton, Marcus


Coleman, Donald
Ginsburg, David
Lomas, Kenneth


Concannon, J. D.
Golding, John
Loyden, Eddie


Conian, Bernard
Gould, Bryan
Luard, Evan


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Gourlay, Harry
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Corbett, Robin
Graham, Ted
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
McCartney, Hugh


Cralgen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Grant, John (Islington C)
McElhone, Frank


Crawshaw, Richard
Grocott, Bruce
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Cronin, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mackenzie, Gregor


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hardy, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.


Cryer, Bob
Harper, Joseph
Maclennan, Robert


Cunningham. G. (Islington S)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)




McNamara, Kevin
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Madden, Max
Pendry, Tom
Swain, Thomas


Magee, Bryan
Perry, Ernest
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Mahon, Simon
Phipps, Dr Colin
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Marks, Kenneth
Prescott, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Marquand, David
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Price, William (Rugby)
Tierney, Sydney


Marshall, Jim (Leicester 8)
Radlce, Giles
Tomlinson, John


Maynard, Miss Joan
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Tomey, Tom


Meacher, Michael
Richardson, Miss Jo
Tuck, Raphael


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Roberts Albert (Normanton)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Mendeleon, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Mikardo, Ian
Robinson, Geoffrey
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Millan, Bruce
Roderick, Caerwyn
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Ward, Michael


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Rooker, J. W.
Watkins, David


Molloy, William
Roper, John
Watkinson, John


Moonman, Eric
Rose, Paul B.
Weetch, Ken


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Weitzman, David


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rowlands, Ted
Wellbeloved, James


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Sedgemore, Brian
White, James (Pollok)


Moyle, Roland
Selby, Harry
Whiteheed, Phillip


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Whitlock, William


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Newens, Stanley
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Noble, Mike
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Ogden, Eric
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


O'Halloran, Michael
Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Orbach, Maurice
Small, William
Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Ovenden, John
Snape, Peter
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Owen, Dr David
Spearing, Nigel
Woodall, Alec


Padley, Walter
Stallard, A. W.
Woof, Robert


Palmer, Arthur
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Park, George
Stoddart, David



Parker, John
Stott, Roger
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Parry, Robert
Strong, Gavin
Mr. Frank R. White and


Pavitt, Laurie
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Mr. James Tinn,




NOES


Adley, Robert
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Aitken, Jonathan
Cope,John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Alison, Michael
Cordle, John H.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cormack, Patrick
Gray, Hamish


Arnold, Tom
Corrie, John
Grieve, Percy


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Costain, A. P.
Griffiths, Eldon


Awdry, Daniel
Critchley, Julian
Grist, Ian


Baker, Kenneth
Crouch, David
Grylls, Michael


Banks, Robert
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Hall, Sir John


Bell, Ronald
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hampson. Dr Keith


Berry, Hon Anthony
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Haruiam, John


Biffen, John
Durant, Tony
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Biggs-Davison, John
Dykes, Hugh
Harvle Anderson, Rt Hon Miss


Blaker, Peter
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hastings, Stephen


Body, Richard
Edwards. Nicholas (Pembroke)
Havers, Sir Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Elliott, Sir William



Bottomley, Peter
Eyre, Reginald
Hayhoe, Barney


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Falrbalrn, Nicholas
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Fairgrleve, Russell
Hcseltine, Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Farr, John
Hicks, Robert


Brittan, Leon
Fell, Anthony
Higgins, Terence L.


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Holland, Philip


Brotherton, Michael
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Hordem, Peter


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Howell, David (Guildford)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fookes, Miss Janet
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Forman, Nigel
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Buck, Antony
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Hunt, John


Budgen, Nick
Fox, Marcus
Hurd, Douglas


Bulnter, Esmond
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Burden, F. A.
Fry, Peter
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Butler, Adam (Sosworrh)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
James, David


Carlisle, Mark
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Channon, Paul
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)


Churchill, W. S.
Glyn, Dr Alan
Jopling, Michael


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Goodhart, Philip
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Goodhew, Victor
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Clegg, Walter
Goodlad, Alastair
Kershaw, Anthony


Cockcroft, John
Gorst, John
Kimball, Marcus







King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Sims, Roger


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sinclair, Sir George


Kirk, Sir Peter
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Neave, Airey
Speed, Keith


Knight, Mrs Jill
Nelson, Anthony
Spence, John


Knox, David
Neubert, Michael
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lamont, Norman
Newton, Tony
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Lane, David
Normanton, Tom
Sproat, Iain


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Nott, John
Stainton, Keith


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Onslow, Cranley
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lawrence, Ivan
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Stanley, John


Lawson, Nigel
Osborn, John
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Page, John (Harrow West)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stokes, John


Lloyd, Ian
Parkinson, Cecil
Stradling Thomas, J.


Loveridge, John
Pattie, Geoffrey
Tapsell, Peter


Luce, Richard
Percival, Ian
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Tebbit, Norman


McCrindle, Robert
Price, David (Eaatlelgh)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Macfarlane, Nell
Prior, Rt Hon James
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


MacGregor, John
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Raison, Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D.


McNair-Wllson, M. (Newbury)
Rathbone, Tim
Trotter, Neville


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Madel, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.
van Straubenzee, w. R.


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Marten, Nell
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Viggers, Peter


Mates, Michael
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, John


Mather, Carol
Ridsdale, Julian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Maude, Angus
Rifkind, Malcolm
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Mawby, Ray
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Wall, Patrick


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Warren, Kenneth


Mayhew, Patrick
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Weatherill, Bernard


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wells, John


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Mills, Peter
Sainsbury, Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


Miscampbell, Norman
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Winterton, Nicholas


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Scott, Nicholas
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Moate, Roger
Scott-Hopkins, James
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Monro, Hector
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Younger, Hon George


Montgomery, Fergus
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)



Moore, John (Croydon C)
Shelton, William (Streatham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Shepherd, Colin
Mr. W. Benyon and


Morgan, Geraint
Shersby, Michael
Mr. Michael Roberts.


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Silvester, Fred

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 265, Noes 285.

Division No. 217.]
AYES
[9.24 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Budgen, Nick
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bulmer, Esmond
Elliott, Sir William


Alison, Michael
Burden, F. A.
Eyre, Reginald


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Falrbairn, Nicholas


Arnold, Tom
Carlisle, Mark
Farr, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthoroe)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fell, Anthony


Awdry, Daniel
Channon, Paul
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Baker, Kenneth
Churchill, W. S.
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Banks, Robert
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Beith, A. J.
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bell, Ronald
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Forman, Nigel


Bennett. Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Clegg, Walter
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Cockcroft, John
Fox, Marcus


Benyon, W.
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Biffen, John
Cope, John
Freud, Clement


Biggs-Davlson, John
Cordle, John H.
Fry, Peter


Blaker, Peter
Cormack, Patrick
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Body, Richard
Corrie, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Costain, A. P.
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bottomley, Peter
Critchley, Julian
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Crouch, David
Glyn, Dr Alan


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Goodhart, Philip


Brittan, Leon
Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Goodhew, Victor


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Goodlad, Alastair


Brotherton, Michael
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Gorst, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dunlop, John
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Durant, Tony
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Buchanan-Smlth, Alick
Dykes, Hugh
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C)


Suck, Antony
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Gray, Hamish




Grieve, Percy
Macfarlane, Nell
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Griffiths, Eldon
MacGregor, John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Grlmond, Rt Hon J,
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Grist, Ian
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Grylls, Michael
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Hall, Sir John
Madel, David
Sainsbury, Tim


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
St. John-Slevas, Norman


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Marten, Nell
Scott, Nicholas


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mates, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hannam, John
Mather, Carol
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maude, Angus
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Mawby, Ray
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shepherd, Colin


Havers, Sir Michael
Mayhew, Patrick
Shersby, Michael


Hawkins, Paul
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Silvester, Fred


Hayhoe, Barney
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Sims, Roger


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mills, Peter
Sinclair, Sir George


Heseltine, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hicks, Robert
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Speed, Keith


Higgins, Terence L.
Moate, Roger
Spence, John


Holland, Philip
Molyneaux, James
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Hordern, Peter
Monro, Hector
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Montgomery, Fergus
Sproat, Iain


Howell, David (Guildford)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Stainton, Keith


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Morgan, Geraint
Stanley, John


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hunt, John
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hurd, Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stokes, John


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Neave, Airey
Tapsell, Peter


James, David
Nelson, Anthony
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Neubert, Michael
Tebbit, Norman


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grintead)
Newton, Tony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Normanton, Tom
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Nott, John
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Jopling, Michael
Onslow, Cranley
Townsend, Cyril D.


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Trotter, Neville


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Osborn, John
Tugendhat, Christopher


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
page, John (Harrow West)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Kershaw, Anthony
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Kimball, Marcus
Parkinson, Cecil
Viggers, Peter


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wakeham, John


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Percival, Ian
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Kirk, Sir Peter
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wall, Patrick


Knight, Mrs Jill
Prior, Rt Hon James
Warren, Kenneth


Knox, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Weatherill, Bernard


Lament, Norman
Ralson, Timothy
Wells, John


Lane, David
Rathbone, Tim
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Bees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Wiggin, Jerry


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rees-Davles, W. R.
Winterton, Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Lawson, Nigel
Ronton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Younger, Hon George


Lloyd, Ian
Ridley, Hon Nicholas



Loveridge, John
Ridsdale, Julian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Luce, Richard
Rifkind, Malcolm
Mr. Anthony Berry and


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Mr. Jim Lester.


McCrindle, Robert
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)





NOES


Abse, Leo
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Cohen, Stanley


Allaun, Frank
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Coleman, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Bradley, Tom
Concannon, J. D.


Archer, Peter
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Conlan, Bernard


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)


Ashley, Jack
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Corbett, Robin


Ashton, Joe
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Buchan, Norman
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)


Atkinson, Norman
Buchanan, Richard
Crawshaw, Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Cronin, John


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Campbell, Ian
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Bates, Alf
Canavan, Dennis
Cryer, Bob


Bean, R. E.
Cant, R. B.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Carmaichael, Nell
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Carter, Ray
Dalyell, Tam


Bidwell, Sydney
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Davidson, Arthur


Bishop, E. S.
Cartwright, John
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Clemitson, Ivor
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)







Deakins, Eric
Kaufman, Gerald
Price, C. (Lewlsham W)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Kelley, Richard
Price, William (Rugby)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Russell
Radice, Giles


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Dempsey, James
Kinnock, Neil
Richardson, Miss Jo


Doig, Peter
Lambie, David
Roberts Albert (Normanton)


Dormand, J. D.
Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Lamond, James
Robinson, Geoffrey


Duffy, A. E. P.
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Roderick, Caerwyn


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, John
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rooker, J. W.


Eadie, Alex
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Roper, John


Edge, Geoff
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Rose, Paul B.


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lipton, Marcus
Rowlands, Ted


English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth
Sedgemore, Brian


Ennals, David
Loyden, Eddie
Selby, Harry


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Luard, Evan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)


Evans, John (Newton)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McElhone, Frank
Sillars, James


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Silverman, Julius


Flannery, Martin
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Skinner, Dennis


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackenzie, Gregor
Small, William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mackintosh, John P.
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maclennan, Robert
Snape, Peter


Ford, Ben
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Spearing, Nigel


Forrester, John
McNamara, Kevin
Stallard, A. W.


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Madden, Max
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Magee, Bryan
Stoddart, David


Freeson, Reginald
Mahon, Simon
Stott, Roger


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mallalleu, J. P. W.
Strang, Gavin


George, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Gilbert, Dr John
Marquand, David
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Ginsburg, David
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Swain, Thomas


Golding, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Gould, Bryan
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Gourlay, Harry
Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertlliery)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Mendeleon, John
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Grocott, Bruce
Mikardo, Ian
Tierney, Sydney


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce
Tinn, James


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tomlinson, John


Hardy, Peter
Miller, Mrs Millie (Illord N)
Toroey, Tom


Harper, Joseph
Mitchell, R. C. (Solon, lichen)
Tuck, Raphael


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Molloy, William
Wainwridht Edwin (Dearne V)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Moonman, Eric



Hatton, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)


Hayman, Mrs Helena
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Heffer, Eric S.
Moyle, Roland
Ward, Michael


Hooley, Frank
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Watkins, David


Horam, John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Watkinson, John


Howell, Rt Hon Denis
Newens, Stanley
Weetch, Ken


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Noble, Mike
Weitzman, David


Huckfield, Les
Ogden, Eric
White, James (Pollok)


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
O'Halloran, Michael
Whitehead, Phillip


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Orbach, Maurice
Whitlock, William


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Ovenden, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Hunter, Adam
Owen, Dr David
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Padley, Walter
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertfoi


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Park, George
Wilson, Sir Harold (Huyton)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Parker, John
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Jenner, Greville
Parry, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Pavitt, Laurie
Woodall, Alec


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Peart, Rt Hon Fred
Woof, Robert


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pendry, Tom
Young, David (Bolton E)


John, Brynmor
Perry, Ernest



Johnson, James (Hull West)
Phipps, Dr Colin
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Mr. Ted Graham and


Judd, Frank
Prescott, John
Mr. Frank R. White.

Question accordingly negaticed.

New Clause 40

EARLY ENTRY TO FURTHER EDUCATION

'Notwithstanding the provisions of section 9 of the Education Act 1962, where a person attains the age of 16 years on any date after the 1st September, he shall be free to leave his school provided he has been accepted for entry for the term following that date to a full-time course in further education'.—[Mr. St. John-Ste vas.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): With this we may also take the following:

New Clause 35—(Amendment to section 36: exemption from schooling); New Clause 41—(Apprenticeship at 16 years); New Clause 42—(Skilled training at 16 years); New Clause 43—(Service in Her Majesty's forces at 16 years); New Clause 44—(Last year of compulsory education); and Amendment No. 129, in Clause 10, page 5, line 29, at end insert:
',or who is undertaking a course of further education or similar instruction or training'.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: This is an extremely important set of new clauses concerning the school leaving age. They involve a great many issues of fundamental principle. We have had a very reasonable atmosphere in the House today and we have had important discussions on the situation relating to the disabled. I hope that this atmosphere will continue, because it is in the interests of the House that it should do so. However, in order to have an intelligent discussion on this matter it is vital that we should know the Government's intentions about this evening. How far do they intend to go?
We are relying on the fact that a motion has been put down by the Government to suspend the 10 o'clock rule so that we can continue the debate after that time. It would be quite intolerable if for a third time we were to be faced with a situation in which the Government pull up stumps, and abandon their Bill, thus creating a situation in which it is impossible to pursue our discussions. We have 10 new clauses and 15 amendments, apart from the present one, still to discuss. Could we have an indication of the Government's intention?

Otherwise, it will be impossible for us to make intelligent contributions to the debate.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am bound to tell him that I do not have any expectations of completing the remaining stages of the Bill during the present sitting. The discussion has been interesting, but it has at times been characterised more by quantity than by quality. Nevertheless, I am hoping that tonight the hon. Gentleman, in his characteristically concise and clear way, will give his views on this series of new clauses, and we shall have an opportunity to study them and return to them for further consideration at another time.

Hon. Members: No! No!

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We wish to discuss these clauses fully and reasonably, but not at excessive length. We would prefer to have a discussion on these clauses at a reasonable time of day, but rather than have no discussion at all we would want to discuss them at night. Is the Secretary of State proposing to move the suspension at 10 o'clock or not? The House should have the opportunity of hearing the, Government's intentions.

Mr. Mulley: It is a most unusual procedure to anticipate intentions in this way. I do not think we can complete the discussion of these clauses at a reasonable hour, and I know that hon. Members on all sides want to catch trains tonight to their constituencies. [Interruption.] If the Opposition are so anxious to complete the remaining stages of the Bill, perhaps they will facilitate that through the usual channels, and then we can make suitable arrangements.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Once again the Secretary of State has evaded the issue, but let him be under no illusion that if it is he who is refusing to go on after 10 o'clock this evening he has no moral right to introduce a guillotine motion. It will be an abuse of the traditions of the House if he permits it to rise at the early hour of 10 o'clock and then comes back at a later stage complaining that he needs a guillotine to get the Bill through when he has here an Opposition who are willing to go on and discuss clauses in a reasonable way.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Bring back Ted Short.

Dr. Alan Glyn: This is such an important matter that the Government should give us the time to discuss it. That being the case, there can be no possible justification for stopping at 10 o'clock when there are sufficient of us here ready to ensure that the clause is properly debated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member will have an opportunity at some other time to make a speech. We are now discussing New Clause 40.

Mr. Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Throughout this debate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has taken, and very properly, half an hour or so to develop his opening speech. Is it not right that he should be allowed to do this tonight without being interrupted in the middle of his speech?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As far as I am aware, the hon. Member is moving New Clause 40.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am moving it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was attempting to get some rationality and order into the discussion, because while it is one thing, on one occasion—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A moment ago I heard you call the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) to move his new clause. He has said that that is his intention, but he is about to begin a discussion on something entirely different.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is anticipating what the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) might say in moving his new clause. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to develop his argument in his own way.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I was merely endeavouring to establish the time framework of the debate so that I could arrange my arguments with some anticipation of when the discussion was intended to be concluded. On two occasions our discussions have been cut short. We have put up with that in a reasonable way, but it would be intolerable and ridiculous for it to happen a third time. Unfortunately, the Secretary

of State has lost all sense of the duties of his position and of his duties to the House. I trust that if he is entertaining any thought of introducing a guillotine he will abandon it, because to act in that manner would be to flout the traditions of the House.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Mulley: I have no intention of introducing a guillotine tonight or at any particular time, but the hon. Member has stressed this matter so much that we shall have to give it proper consideration.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Let the Minister answer a simple question. Will there be a suspension of the rule at 10 o'clock?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Did you call the hon. Member for Chelmsford to move the new clause? What motion are we supposed to be discussing? Is it a guillotine motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Perhaps I can advise the hon. Member. We are discussing New Clause 40.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Exactly. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is obvious to all hon. Members where the responsibility will lie if we are unable to discuss these important clauses tonight.
The Opposition's attitude to the raising of the school leaving age to 16 is quite clear. We support it in principle. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State for Education when the reform was introduced. We stick by the principle but we believe it is sensible that, in the light of experience, we should make it more flexible. The object of the clause is that, while keeping the principle, we should make it sufficiently flexible to meet the objections of teachers, who should be listened to with respect as they have devoted their lives to education.
New Clause 40 provides that the principle of education to the age of 16 will be fulfilled provided that a pupil has been accepted for entry to a full-time course of further education in the term following his sixteenth birthday. It puts into practice what should perhaps have been the original principle in law—not that


it should be necessary to attend school until the age of 16, but that education should continue until that age.
It does not matter whether education takes place in a school, a college of further education or some other institute of learning, provided that the education is continued. New Clause 40 attempts to import that modification into the law. We are not wedded to our form wording. We put forward the new clause as a basis for discussion. If Ministers can find a better form of words enshrining the same principle, no one will be more delighted than my hon. Friends.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Can the hon. Gentleman explain what the new clause means? It seems to say that a pupil may leave school on his birthday provided that he has been accepted for a full-time course of further education starting the following term. That could result in an intermission of nearly a term in a pupil's education.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is designed for the Easter leavers. But the Minister of State must not spend his time picking holes in wording. What we expect from the hon. Gentleman is a declaration of Government policy on this matter. That is all the more important if our discussions on the clause tonight are to be transcated against our will. We shall not have time to go through these clauses word by word if the Government are to abandon their Bill for a third time and leave us—I would say in limbo, had it not been abolished by the Second Vatican Council—for another week.

Sir David Renton: My hon. Friend has quite rightly asked for a declaration of Government policy on this matter. Has it occurred to him that the Government may have no policy for a change or improvement, and that equally we are entitled to the Government's views as to why they have no policy for such change?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My right hon. and learned Friend is so concise, eloquent and to the point. What can I add? I should be reduced to the state of a footnote if I attempted to add anything to that extremely pertient observation.
I pass on to New Clause 41. We are consistent in these clauses. New Clause

41 retains the principle of education to the age of 16 but provides that, if there has been acceptance for a full-time approved apprenticeship and adequate arrangements have been made for that, the pupil will be abl eto leave school in order to take up that apprenticeship.
New Clause 42 enshrines the same principle. It states that the school may be left if skilled training is provided.
In New Clause 43 we again have the same principle of leaving at 16, but it adds that
he shall be free to leave the school"—
that is to say, before that date—
provided he has been accepted for entry for the term following that date into Her Majesty's armed forces".
The Forces have in the past provided an excellent education, in addition to the military training, for boys and girls in this position. There would, therefore, be no loss educationally. There would be a gain, I think, all round by these proposals. The Armed Services are anxious to do this.
The further clauses concern the last year of compulsory education, and New Clause 44 is to be explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet). He will be able to speak for himself, provided that we are not guillotined this evening by the Government.
I think it is extremely important not to be carried away, either on one side of the argument or on the other, or to take up an entrenched position. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who blazed a trail in this respect and was one of the first Members in the House to produce a Private Member's Bill suggesting a modification to this principle. I felt unable to support him then because I thought that the way in which it was presented was perhaps too definite for that period of time. But everything has evolved since then and I think we have now found, without any change of position from either of us, a meeting point. That is a quite remarkable thing to have done.

Mr. Freud: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: No. Moderation in all things.
On this particular matter, which is of great importance, I hope we shall be able to present a united approach so that we can meet the serious anxieties among teachers and in the education service. At the same time, we shall keep the principle of education to the age of 16, which is important.
At this point I want to develop the argument in further detail on these new clauses. Now that we have started this debate and now that the principles have been laid before us, it would be helpful if we were able to continue it. I do not say that we should continue the debate to a very late hour. That is not desirable. However, to have an hour's debate on this important set of new clauses, when we have so many Opposition Members present, would be reasonable. We want to hear tonight the Government's attitude on these new clauses. We hoped that on this issue there would be a change of heart, if not of mind—if that be the appropriate word to apply to the Secretary of State.
We would move the suspension ourselves were we able to do so. Unfortunately, that is confined to a Minister of the Crown. Therefore, the responsibility lies in the hands of the Secretary of State. It is a motion put down in the name of the leader of his own Government, the Prime Minister, and only he can facilitate the discussion. I am endeavouring to continue the debate.
It is possible to take up a rigid line on the question of education to 16 years. One may say that there must be no change in the law whatsoever and that to change it would fatally weaken the principle. I do not think that that is a right attitude, though I understand it because so many people have worked for this principle. I also understand the regional concern that exists. It is, unfortunately, a fact that a far higher proportion of children in the South of England stay on for further education at schools than is the case in the North. That is a regional problem.
I also understand the fears for working-class children whose parents may not be—though this by no means applies in every case—as strongly motivated as others to advance the education of their children. There may be pressures on those children to leave school

at an early age. All those fears are reasonable and should be taken into account. It is precisely because those fears are reasonably based that we think it would be wrong to alter the principle. However, we should make it more flexible.
It is, in fact, the difference between the suspending and the dispensing power. To suspend the principle of education to 16 would be wrong. To allow dispensations from it would be right and reasonable. We have some historical examples on our side. Our late Majesty King James II kept the throne when he used the dispensing power, but when he used a suspending power he lost it. It is as well, first, to know history, because history is very far from bunk, and then to draw the right lessons from it.
I hope, therefore, that we shall have a reasonable approach from the Minister. We shall listen with great interest to the contribution he has to make.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Mr. Deputy Speaker—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — FORTH AND CLYDE CANAL

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stallard.]

10 p.m.

Mr. J. M. Craigen: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise the subject of revitalising the Forth and Clyde Canal. I welcome the fact that the Minister of State, Department of the Environment is to reply to the debate.
The Forth and Clyde Canal is a remarkable piece of engineering. Some 200 years after its construction it is no longer being commercially used, nor is it a cruising waterway. Under the 1968 Transport Act, the Forth and Clyde Canal qualified as a remainder waterway. I wonder what the engineers and navvies who constructed the canal at the end of the eighteenth century would think of the multitude of public authorities which are now involved in overseeing this 35-mile water link, especially since


the canal has been closed to traffic for the past 15 years.
There are about a dozen public bodies involved with the planning or management of the canal. At times, it is almost easier to shake hands with an octopus than to identify one body which actually makes and carries out decisions regarding this waterway.
My concern tonight is to secure far greater interest by the Department of the Environment in improvements to the canal and its surroundings and in promoting maximum safety measures. Only within the past 24 hours there was a tragic drowning of a young lad in part of the canal. I gather the matter is being treated as a fatal accident and is presently in the hands of the procurator fiscal. However, reports suggest that the rescuers were hampered by the amount of weeds in the area where the boy was drowned. I trust the Minister will agree that this gives added emphasis to the continuing need to strengthen the safety factors surrounding the canal and particularly to do something more to clear the weeds that have grown up.
I would also wish to see the Department co-operate more closely with the local authorities in the area in developing this waterway as a local amenity for residents. I believe this would fit in closely with the City of Glasgow District Council's plans for open space and recreational development for the northwest of the city there is a great need for additional recreational facilities. Coincident with these improvements would be the attraction of industry.
Finally, I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to clarify responsibilities for the canal in respect of future policies. The public expenditure situation at the moment effectively rules out filling in the canal as some people would suggest. The last count that I have is that it would cost about £1 million per mile to fill it in. In any case, such a simplistic solution ignores the problem of land drainage and piping difficulties, and the requirements of a few remaining industrial concerns.
The other prospect is the complete reopening to navigation. However, I believe this is very much in the hazy distance. In time it may be that we shall come to recognise the potential of a coast-to-coast water route between the Firth of

Clyde and the Firth of Forth. I know, however, that the British Waterways Board does not see navigation as a serious option in the foreseeable future.
All I am suggesting tonight is that the Department of the Environment, in its consultations with the local authorities, should not entirely close this long-term option. Indeed, I would point out that the Department has not given a particularly favourable response to the representations from Glasgow District Council and Strathclyde Regional Council regarding the setting up of a study team to take a long-term look at the potential of the canal.
Tonight it would be more profitable if I concentrated on the more immediate future. There is a danger of ending up doing nothing anywhere rather than trying to do something somewhere along this stretch of canal. I would ask the Minister, in particular, to tackle the problem, through the British Waterways Board, of clearing up the weed-ridden parts of the canal from a safety point of view, to encourage the board to undertake more repairs to parts of the stone retaining walls which are badly damaged, and to seek improvements to the towpaths so that they would become more suitable for walking as well as safer. I would ask him to make use of gabions and adjust the level of the water on certain stretches, which would improve the safety factors surrounding the canal.
These were points which I had the opportunity of taking up at the end of March with the Chairman of the British Waterways Board in London. He gave every indication of good will on his part to try to do something along these lines. Further features which could be attended to would be the clearance of much of the flotsam on the surface of the canal and special attention to the Maryhill locks, a remarkable historical centrepiece, but in need of certain repairs including, for example, the re-erection of handrails which I understand were taken down some time ago because they became defective. It would be a step towards better safety if they were to be re-erected at appropriate distance from the locks.
I am not thinking in terms of millons of pounds because I know the money is not available these days. The steps I should like to be taken require more


imagination than has perhaps been evidenced in the past. During the Glasgow spring holiday this year there was a remarkable turnout at a Canal Rally in Maryhill, which was part of the Clyde Fair organised by Radio Clyde. About £800 has been raised and used by many of the volunteers who have done a great deal of work to improve the facilities on the canal.
As a matter of policy the British Waterways Board does not encourage job creation schemes undertaken by voluntary bodies. I hope that perhaps we shall be able to make use of the Scottish Development Agency in facilitating such work. The agency indicated earlier this year that it was prepared to sponsor suitable job creation schemes.
In passing I would say that in my experience that other major landowner, British Rail, which comes under the Department of the Environment, is the slowest moving body on wheels in relation to making improvements. The experience of Wyndford Community Council in dealing with the board over a job creation scheme for the improvement of the site of the former Maryhill Central Station has been very disappointing.
The British Waterways Board owns the Firhill Basin which is next to Firhill Park, which my hon. Friend will know as the grounds of the Partick Thistle Football Club. The basin and grounds are not in the Maryhill constituency but in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Carmichael). I have had a word with him and he is in agreement with me that the ideas put forward by Partick Thistle Football Club in the last few months for the development of its ground and social club facilities should be encouraged.
The club hopes to combine with the local authorities over establishing leisure developments which would include a leisure pool, sports hall, pleasure grounds, cycle track and something of a neighbourhood park. This could have a major and beneficial impact on the North Kelvin area and in the Wester Common area which is part of my constituency.
I hope, therefore, that the British Waterways Board will respond as favourably as possible to any representations

that Glasgow District Council and Strathclyde Regional Council may make on this subject. I understand the board has a duty to assist local authorities wherever possible.
Perhaps I have intruded into areas that are not the concern of my hon. Friend because, although he is Minister of State with responsibility for sport and recreation, he is not Scotland's Minister of State for Sport and Recreation. Therefore, his White Paper on sport and recreation, which was published last August, does not apply to Scotland. Even so, I hope that where the Department of the Environment has a responsibility, it will act in conjunction with the local authority, particularly Glasgow District Council which I know is anxious to combine the waterway link with its own development plans for open space and recreation in the north-west of the city.
It was Mr. Arthur Oldham, the then director of parks for the former Glasgow Corporation, who was particuarly anxious to see a fresh look taken at the potential of the canal. Two reports were published by the corporation on the work undertaken by William Gillespie and Associates into the character and future use of the canal. Both reports identified the canal as an amenity rather than a liability. In respect of the British Waterways Board joint working party with local authorities and other interested bodies, perhaps the Minister would indicate whether he would encourage the board to permit some participation by voluntary bodies, a number of which have shown great interest in recent years and have participated in activities connected with the canal.
There is the Scottish Inland Waterways Association, for example, whose restoration convener, Mr. Richard Davies, has been particularly active. Then there is the New Glasgow Society in which Mr. Gordon Borthwick, in his year as chairman, has shown a keen interest. There is the new Maryhill Association and its secretary, Mr. David Forrester. All those persons and countless others have shown an interest. It is not simply a question of money. It is also a matter of trying to tap their enthusiasm and the effort they have been prepared to put into these matters.
I have been talking largely about the main section of the canal which flows


from firth to firth, with one or two obstacles. But the short Glasgow branch which goes into the city centre is an eyesore in parts. Originally, it was intended that much of that section should be filled in for the Maryhill motorway. However, the uncertainties over the future growth of the private motor car apart, public expenditure has effectively squeezed out motorway development and we now have a situation where the proposed Maryhill motorway is no more than a ghost track. I hope, therefore, that the board will encourage a number of improvements to that section of the canal, which is not particularly pleasant for the people who have to live nearby.
There are a great many uncertainties surrounding the future of the canal. First, we have the consultative document which the Minister published recently—the Review of the Water Industry in England and Wales. But that document affects Scotland as well. It proposes merging the British Waterways Board into a new national water authority. It also questions the future of the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council.
The headquarters of the British Waterways Board in Scotland lies just within my constituency and, although the board has only four canals in Scotland to look after, it will be placed in a peculiar position over the Scottish dimension. Mr. Brian Davenport, the engineer, and his staff, do a good job. I believe that the Convention of Local Authorities has made representations to the Department of the Environment on this very part of the consultative document.
Then the White Paper on devolution proposes to transfer to a Scottish Assembly the responsibilities for Scottish inland waterways. No doubt having heard me this evening, the Minister will be glad to get rid of the responsibilities which his Department has in Scotland. However, I think that he will agree with me that there is considerable confusion over the control of the canal, because apart from the Minister, the district councils and the Strathclyde and the Central Regional authorities, the Scottish Office has an important responsibility as the Department of State with the planning oversight on land development matters and it has certain powers to grant-aid local authorities in respect of derelict sites. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend

will be passing on to the Scottish Office some of the comments which are more pertinent to it.
There is the feeling among some of my English colleagues that the civil servants at the Department of the Environment are not all that keen on canals. I hope that that is an unfair slander and that the Minister will give the lie to that and to any suggestion that he himself is not interested in the future development of canals.

10.19 p.m.

The Minister of State for Sport and Recreation (Mr. Denis Howell): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) for raising the question of the Forth and Clyde Canal. First, I join him in saying how sad it is that on the eve of this Adjournment debate one of his young constituents should die in the canal. On behalf of the Government, I extend to my hon. Friend's constituents our considerable sympathy in the matter. 'That highlights many of the problems on which my hon. Friend has had correspondence and discussions with me.
I shall deal with the immediate past history of the canal. It is a remainder waterway. It is administered by the British Waterways Board. It was legally closed to navigation in 1962. The Transport Act 1968 classified certain of the board's waterways for commercial use and cruising. It left the Forth and Clyde as a remainder waterway.
The board is required, under Section 107 of the Act, to deal with the canal in the most economical manner possible, whether by retaining and managing it, consistent with the requirements of public health and the preservation of amenity and safety, by developing or eliminating it, or by disposing of it. I emphasise that the board has no duty to provide for navigation unless that is the most economical treatment, which, I am advised, seems unlikely. That is the legal and immediate historical background.
I shall now say a word on the physical condition of the canal. Numerous crossings of the waterway have been fixed, which form obstruction to navigation. Some lengths of the canal have been filled in. In addition, the water level has had to be reduced to stop erosion of the banks


at critical points where breaches could occur. The House will therefore realise the great difficulty that exists with the canal.
Various bodies such as the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council have contemplated the restoration of through navigation. The council suggested that in its October 1974 report. But even that body had to accept the knowledge of numerous obstructions to true navigation which had been identified and which I now mention. My Department's order-of-cost assessment at that time—October 1974—to deal with the canal was in the region of £20 million. Therefore, my hon. Friend will immediately see the extent of the difficulty.
My Department, the Scottish Development Department, the British Waterways Board and the Scottish regional authorities and district council, which must foot most of the restoration bill, recognise that through navigation is no longer feasible. Waterways, even without through navigation, may be put to good use for other forms of recreation and amenity. I am confident that the British Waterways Board would want to do all it can in that respect.
I thought that my hon. Friend's outline of the scheme, of which I had no previous knowledge and which seemed to involve Partick Thistle and the general leisure complex, was exactly the kind of scheme which I tried to encourage in my White Paper—although that does not apply to Scotland. As my White Paper on sport and recreation and my consultation document on the future of the waterways have the support of the British Waterways Board, I am sure that within its financial constraints the hoard would wish to be positive in its approach to any scheme. I shall convey my hon. Friend's thoughts to those bodies and to the Scottish Office, which already has responsibility for local government and regional matters in Scotland.
As we have few canals in the national network system, responsibility for the entire canal system rests with my Department. I am glad to report that we work in close co-operation with our Scottish colleagues.
I know that my hon. Friend has been in touch with the Chairman of the British

Waterways Board. He has also been in touch with the riparian owners, with the regional and local authorities and with the Scottish Countryside Commission, in the hope of preparing an overall plan.
My colleagues in the Scottish Office agree with me that these matters are best worked out initially between the authorities concerned and the British Waterways Board. I hope that we shall soon have a clear picture of how the waterway could be brought back so far as possible into use for recreation and amenity. These are attractive objectives which I fully support. I believe that our canal system, which was created in the aftermath of the Industrial Revolution to provide cheap transportation, now has attractive recreation and leisure possibilities.
Therefore, I was particularly pleased to hear my hon. Friend ask about job creation schemes. I recently had the pleasure of opening two stretches of canal in England in which I think job creation programmes played a part. Certainly, the harnessing of the tremendous enthusiasm of volunteers has been of major significance. It is very heartening to find tens of thousands of people who will give up part of their weekends and holidays over the year to clear canals and open them up for navigation, in co-operation with the local authorities, put the towpaths in good order, put a few chairs there and make them become an agreeable part of the local environment.
My hon. Friend told the House about the unfortunate fatality in the canal. It has been part of our experience that the more we can open up canals, put them in good order, have them used and encourage people to take a walk along them, the better from a safety point of view. I have recently seen an example in Lancashire and Cheshire where a pub has been provided and people are encouraged to take the air and look at the water, which the British like to do. It is an interesting sidelight that this seems to increase public safety, because more people are there and are able to intervene immediately when an occasional accident occur.
My hon. Friend talked about the need to raise the water level in the canal. I know that he has had conversations with the Chairman of the British Waterways Board. I understand that the level had


to be lowered to prevent the risk of a breach through a serious deterioration of the canal system.
I think my hon. Friend said that my civil servants and I had enthusiasm for canals. The reason why the Government propose in their consultation document that the British Waterways Board network should go into the water industry as a whole and become part of the National Water Authority is exactly that we have that enthusiasm. There is no division among Ministers, and I do not think that there is any division among my advisers, on that point.
There is a backlog of maintenance on our waterways amounting to many millions of pounds. One of the reasons for our recommendations is that we must find the money to put the situation right. Otherwise, the canals will continue to decay. Moreover, people want to sail through the country on our canal system and want a national navigation authority.
We want to keep the canals a national entity. They are part of our national heritage and should be seen in that light. But we must face the facts of life. I have just seen the report of the consultants on the backlog of maintenance. I have no doubt that the results of their thinking will see the light of day relatively soon. The problem can be dealt with properly only by integrating the canal system into the water industry as a whole.
This has been a very useful debate. I thank my hon. Friend for raising these matters.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.